Prayer

[Ethos]

On a purely theological level, does god answer prayers while keeping in mind the unintended consequences of the result? And does he hold any responsibility for the outcome?

I ask because it would seem benign to grant someone a prayer when that person's intent is good, however the nature of free will would indicate that even god-granted prayers are subject to a potential "Monkey's Paw" type effect. While god may not interfere with free will, he is certainly cognisant of what a person will do in the future. Is god then at least partially responsible for the negative outcome of a situation made possible through his response to a prayer?

Ethos

[Mickey Shane]

God wouldn't respond to a prayer knowing (all Knowing) that there would be negative consequences. That doesn't sound like a very God-like scenario to me.

[SpringRain]

God wouldn't respond to a prayer knowing (all Knowing) that there would be negative consequences. That doesn't sound like a very God-like scenario to me.

All options have negative consequences for someone even if not the person praying. To say otherwise is to be naive. . .(biting tongue.)

[burntgorilla]

Surely God is responsible anyway since he created everything? Unless you want to use the Devil cop out.

Edit: Actually, the whole Devil/Hell thing seems to play less importance. The Devil used to be an explanation for anything bad, now it seems to be that questions such as "why do bad things happen?" aren't automatically answered with "because of the Devil". Perhaps that's because religion has moved on from terrorising people through the thought of Hell.

[Ethos]

God wouldn't respond to a prayer knowing (all Knowing) that there would be negative consequences. That doesn't sound like a very God-like scenario to me.

That's what I considered at first, however wouldn't that position be contrary to the doctrine of free will that god is supposed to observe?

[Craig]

That's what I considered at first, however wouldn't that position be contrary to the doctrine of free will that god is supposed to observe?

How so? God not responding to a particular prayer should not violate the doctrine of free will.

As I understand it, God is supposed to know where your heart is; in other words, he knows your intentions, your purposes behind prayers, and the like. Generally speaking, the stronger one's relationship with God, the more likely it is that you will pray for things which align with His will/desire, which therefore also helps to minimize the scenario you described in the initial post.

[Ethos]

How so? God not responding to a particular prayer should not violate the doctrine of free will.

As I understand it, God is supposed to know where your heart is; in other words, he knows your intentions, your purposes behind prayers, and the like. Generally speaking, the stronger one's relationship with God, the more likely it is that you will pray for things which align with His will/desire, which therefore also helps to minimize the scenario you described in the initial post.

If god denies a prayer because the individual in question will at some future time make a decision that has negative consequences, he would in essence be denying the free will of that individual.

I would fully expect a person has good desires and intentions, however as a human being he or she is subject to not only temptation, but the ability to make poor ethical choices. Obviously my scenario is a hypothetical, but we assume the initial intentions are entirely pure while the eventual outcome is not - something that may be unlikely, but it entirely possible given the players involved.

Ethos

[serenity]

On a purely theological level, does god answer prayers while keeping in mind the unintended consequences of the result? And does he hold any responsibility for the outcome?


My understanding si that God reads between the lines, so to speak. If you pray for money, or for your team to win the baseball game, He will respond...but not in the literal way expected. Rather, He will do what's best.

You might ask, if this is indeed the case, whether prayer has any effect at all. And it would be a dman good question.

[Mickey Shane]

That's what I considered at first, however wouldn't that position be contrary to the doctrine of free will that god is supposed to observe?God will most certainly stand back and watch you make poor choices. There's your "free will". Also, an unanswered prayer is still an answer. It's called "no", which is the closest thing that we have to an international language word.

[Craig]

If god denies a prayer because the individual in question will at some future time make a decision that has negative consequences, he would in essence be denying the free will of that individual.

I would fully expect a person has good desires and intentions, however as a human being he or she is subject to not only temptation, but the ability to make poor ethical choices. Obviously my scenario is a hypothetical, but we assume the initial intentions are entirely pure while the eventual outcome is not - something that may be unlikely, but it entirely possible given the players involved.

Ethos


I disagree. I see your thinking on this- by not allowing us to commit actions of negative consequence when granting prayers, God is denying us free will. However, shift your perspective on the subject and consider it this way. God only impinges upon free will if He does something which directly affects or coerces our choices in some way. But God not granting a prayer means that the person in question is free to choose to do whatever he wants to do. It just means that the person doesn't get the thing that he asked God for when he prayed.

Let's remove God from the equation: if you want me to lend you my firearm, and I refuse to do so because I know you intend to use it to kill a person, am I impinging on your free will?

[SpringRain]

I disagree. I see your thinking on this- by not allowing us to commit actions of negative consequence when granting prayers, God is denying us free will. However, shift your perspective on the subject and consider it this way. God only impinges upon free will if He does something which directly affects or coerces our choices in some way. But God not granting a prayer means that the person in question is free to choose to do whatever he wants to do. It just means that the person doesn't get the thing that he asked God for when he prayed.

Not necessarily, he/she may still acquire whatever it was he/she wanted.


Let's remove God from the equation: if you want me to lend you my firearm, and I refuse to do so because I know you intend to use it to kill a person, am I impinging on your free will?

I still want to point out that all choices have both good and bad consquences depending on whose perspective it is being viewed from. So how does God handle that? I pray for my husband to get that job; someone else's spouse isn't gong to get it. Does God justify it in that the "better" person got the job. I doubt it judging by the people who usually get that job. Or perhaps God likes sneaky, brown nosers.

[Craig]

Not necessarily, he/she may still acquire whatever it was he/she wanted.

True, but that's beside the point.


I still want to point out that all choices have both good and bad consquences depending on whose perspective it is being viewed from. So how does God handle that? I pray for my husband to get that job; someone else's spouse isn't gong to get it. Does God justify it in that the "better" person got the job. I doubt it judging by the people who usually get that job. Or perhaps God likes sneaky, brown nosers.

This is a good point, and one that Richard Dawkins raises. It is slightly problematic, although not necessarily a major problem, theologically speaking. I expect that the Christian response to it is that since God knows all things, He is in a better position than anyone else to evaluate whose prayers to answer. So in a case of two people applying for the job, God could see to it that the person who was in a closer relationship with Him receives it. Alternatively, if God felt the job wasn't the right direction for that person's life, He could not answer that particular prayer. And, if there were two Christian candidates, both of whom had good relationships with Him, God could help the one achieve the job and help the other get another suitable occupation.

[Ethos]

I disagree. I see your thinking on this- by not allowing us to commit actions of negative consequence when granting prayers, God is denying us free will. However, shift your perspective on the subject and consider it this way. God only impinges upon free will if He does something which directly affects or coerces our choices in some way. But God not granting a prayer means that the person in question is free to choose to do whatever he wants to do. It just means that the person doesn't get the thing that he asked God for when he prayed.

Let's remove God from the equation: if you want me to lend you my firearm, and I refuse to do so because I know you intend to use it to kill a person, am I impinging on your free will?

Your analogy doesn't really follow my hypothetical. If you will permit me to re-structure:

I want you to lend me a firearm for benign purposes. My actual intent is fully positive and you believe that to be the case, so you lend me the weapon. Later I end up shooting my wife with it.

Do you hold any responsibility in this situation?

Ethos

[SpringRain]

True, but that's beside the point.




This is a good point, and one that Richard Dawkins raises. It is slightly problematic, although not necessarily a major problem, theologically speaking. I expect that the Christian response to it is that since God knows all things, He is in a better position than anyone else to evaluate whose prayers to answer. So in a case of two people applying for the job, God could see to it that the person who was in a closer relationship with Him receives it. Alternatively, if God felt the job wasn't the right direction for that person's life, He could not answer that particular prayer. And, if there were two Christian candidates, both of whom had good relationships with Him, God could help the one achieve the job and help the other get another suitable occupation.

They could say thus. However I would point out that there are very few of us who know anyone who has been the "right" or "fair" person to get the job, xtian or not. And, when two right people are vying, rarely does the loser do anything but become bitter. IE I need evidence that the stated idea above has any basis in the normal realities/experiences in our lives.

[Cedars]

Your analogy doesn't really follow my hypothetical. If you will permit me to re-structure:

I want you to lend me a firearm for benign purposes. My actual intent is fully positive and you believe that to be the case, so you lend me the weapon. Later I end up shooting my wife with it.

Do you hold any responsibility in this situation?

Ethos
I pretty much agree with Craig's responses. I would add that God answers ALL prayers; sometimes the answer just happens to be no (we do not get what we want).

With regard to your re-structured hypothetical, if God were to give you a firearm for "benign purposes" and you later end up shooting your wife with it, you pose an interesting view -- interesting from the standpoint that if you blame God for giving you something to use for good and you later used it for evil, well, then, you could substitute ANY item or talent for the firearm and still blame God. God provided the firearm which you later used for evil; or God provided you fire which you later used for evil; or God provided you intelligence which you later used for evil . . . . That theory is a cop out, because you would be refusing to take any responsibility for your own actions. This is the exact same lesson we learn from the story of Adam and Eve. In the Garden of Eden, the forbidden tree of knowledge of good and evil was not about knowledge of good and evil (if it were, then Adam and Eve would not have been guilty of committing wrong if they did not yet know it was wrong). No, what they had done was they made themselves arbiters over God's moral law, deciding for themselves what was right and wrong. Like Adam and Eve, you are blaming someone else (Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent). In your theory, God put both Adam and Eve and the serpent on earth so God is to blame. Like Adam and Eve, you would not be taking responsibility for your own actions. It is The Fall of Man all over again.

[Craig]

Your analogy doesn't really follow my hypothetical. If you will permit me to re-structure:

I want you to lend me a firearm for benign purposes. My actual intent is fully positive and you believe that to be the case, so you lend me the weapon. Later I end up shooting my wife with it.

Do you hold any responsibility in this situation?

Ethos

I realized after posting that my analogy was flawed. But I don't think yours is accurate enough either. Let's try a third revision:

You want me to lend you a firearm, say for hunting. I know that you intend to use this firearm for hunting; however, I also know that you've made comments about "taking care of your wife" in the past. I lend you the gun, and besides taking it hunting, you later shoot your wife.

The difference between this newest analogy and your is important, namely that I am aware of the possibility of you murdering your wife. This is more consistent with the scenario you initially described, since God is in fact aware of our intentions and future actions according to most Christian's belief.

In the scenario I just outlined, I would be partially responsible for the shooting, because I leant you the gun with the conscious knowledge that you might use it to shoot your wife at some point. However, in the scenario you initially described with God, I see no reason to believe that he'd grant the prayer in the first place unless He had some reason for thinking that the benefits would outweigh the negative consequence. But this seems inconsistent with the description of God as good, so I'm more inclined to think that He'd prefer a situation where the prayer is not answered, and therefore the negative consequence cannot occur.

That brings us to the next point, whether or not God is preventing our free will. I'm sticking with my initial response, which is no. Our actions are not coerced or forced by God not responding to our prayer; we can continue to act and behave in a manner of our choosing.

[SpringRain]

I realized after posting that my analogy was flawed. But I don't think yours is accurate enough either. Let's try a third revision:

You want me to lend you a firearm, say for hunting. I know that you intend to use this firearm for hunting; however, I also know that you've made comments about "taking care of your wife" in the past. I lend you the gun, and besides taking it hunting, you later shoot your wife.

The difference between this newest analogy and your is important, namely that I am aware of the possibility of you murdering your wife. This is more consistent with the scenario you initially described, since God is in fact aware of our intentions and future actions according to most Christian's belief.

In the scenario I just outlined, I would be partially responsible for the shooting, because I leant you the gun with the conscious knowledge that you might use it to shoot your wife at some point. However, in the scenario you initially described with God, I see no reason to believe that he'd grant the prayer in the first place unless He had some reason for thinking that the benefits would outweigh the negative consequence. But this seems inconsistent with the description of God as good, so I'm more inclined to think that He'd prefer a situation where the prayer is not answered, and therefore the negative consequence cannot occur.

Again you suggest that a lack of answer to prayer means a negative consequence "cannot occur" which is patently false. It may mean that god didn't have a direct relationship with the outcome; but it doesn't end the possibility of the outcome in anyway.

That brings us to the next point, whether or not God is preventing our free will. I'm sticking with my initial response, which is no. Our actions are not coerced or forced by God not responding to our prayer; we can continue to act and behave in a manner of our choosing.
Again yes we can continue to act and behave in a manner of our choosing.

If there was a god and he was somehow the benevalent being some dream of; the prayers of women to not be beaten or killed by their husbands would be answered. I have no doubt as to the number of women in hospitals and morgues that must've been praying for god to intervene and save them; but alas since their is no god; or he doesn't answer prayers; or he doesn't really care for the innocent and needy vs. the cruel and powerful; no matter how you cut it, there is no evidence that prayers are answered with any type of logic, thought, or consideration of any kind.

[Craig]

Again you suggest that a lack of answer to prayer means a negative consequence "cannot occur" which is patently false. It may mean that god didn't have a direct relationship with the outcome; but it doesn't end the possibility of the outcome in anyway.

This is true, but at this point, it's you exercising your free will, which the Christian God allows us to do, according to most sects of Christianity.

Again yes we can continue to act and behave in a manner of our choosing.

If there was a god and he was somehow the benevalent being some dream of; the prayers of women to not be beaten or killed by their husbands would be answered. I have no doubt as to the number of women in hospitals and morgues that must've been praying for god to intervene and save them; but alas since their is no god; or he doesn't answer prayers; or he doesn't really care for the innocent and needy vs. the cruel and powerful; no matter how you cut it, there is no evidence that prayers are answered with any type of logic, thought, or consideration of any kind.

Now we're moving into the Problem of Evil, which is something else that's different yet. There are several Christian responses to this, although I don't necessarily find them persuasive myself in all instances.

However, in the example you give, what exactly is God supposed to do? Is He supposed to smite the husband and kill him before he can harm his wife? Is He supposed to debilitate or incapacitate the man? What would you expect Him to do? And, for that matter, what about the fact that the women is knowingly continuing to stay with an individual whom causes her violence, or has at least threatened her in the past? The Bible does state at one point something along the lines of "God helps those who help themselves".

[Cedars]

I agree with SpringRain that negative actions DO occur. We have many gifts from God that we sometimes do abuse (intelligence, natural resources, etc.). We do not always understand why God permits some prayers to be fulfilled and others not.

[billygardener]

Why are you only looking at a Christian model of prayer?
What about the concept that prayer is for you to thank G-d and to ultimately help yourself, ie not ask for miracles. I do not know too much about this, I just remember from my Jewish education asking why we pray since G-d doesn't really need our approval, I was told "to help yourself." Can anyone elaborate on that?

[Craig]

I agree with SpringRain that negative actions DO occur. We have many gifts from God that we sometimes do abuse (intelligence, natural resources, etc.). We do not always understand why God permits some prayers to be fulfilled and others not.

What do you say though specifically on the issue of prayers which could have a negative consequence later? Is there a reason why God would fulfill them, and if so, do you have any suggestions why He might choose to do so?

[Cedars]

Why are you only looking at a Christian model of prayer?
What about the concept that prayer is for you to thank G-d and to ultimately help yourself, ie not ask for miracles. I do not know too much about this, I just remember from my Jewish education asking why we pray since G-d doesn't really need our approval, I was told "to help yourself." Can anyone elaborate on that?
Yes, in the Catholic Church prayer is also for thanksgiving and praise. Prayer is talking to God, whether it be for praise, thanks or a request.

[Cedars]

What do you say though specifically on the issue of prayers which could have a negative consequence later? Is there a reason why God would fulfill them, and if so, do you have any suggestions why He might choose to do so?
Specifically, as I stated before, we do not always understand why God permits some prayers to be fulfilled and others not. I think you are on the right track, though, that God looks at all things (because He knows all); and He can bring good out of what we have turned evil -- all without interfering with our free will.

[Ethos]

In the scenario I just outlined, I would be partially responsible for the shooting, because I leant you the gun with the conscious knowledge that you might use it to shoot your wife at some point. However, in the scenario you initially described with God, I see no reason to believe that he'd grant the prayer in the first place unless He had some reason for thinking that the benefits would outweigh the negative consequence. But this seems inconsistent with the description of God as good, so I'm more inclined to think that He'd prefer a situation where the prayer is not answered, and therefore the negative consequence cannot occur.

That brings us to the next point, whether or not God is preventing our free will. I'm sticking with my initial response, which is no. Our actions are not coerced or forced by God not responding to our prayer; we can continue to act and behave in a manner of our choosing.

We often hear that our lives are not pre-determined, despite the fact that god "knows" what we will and will not do. The concept seems contradictory, however the explanation is that while god knows what we will do, it is still our free choice to do differently.

In this context, how is it not an interruption of free will for god to refuse a prayer he would otherwise grant because of what a person might choose to do with that benefit at a later time. He would be penalizing you for an act of free will and enforcing the premise of predetermination that is not supposed to exist.

Ethos

[Cedars]

We often hear that our lives are not pre-determined, despite the fact that god "knows" what we will and will not do. The concept seems contradictory, however the explanation is that while god knows what we will do, it is still our free choice to do differently.

In this context, how is it not an interruption of free will for god to refuse a prayer he would otherwise grant because of what a person might choose to do with that benefit at a later time. He would be penalizing you for an act of free will and enforcing the premise of predetermination that is not supposed to exist.

Ethos
You are arguing a contradictory point. If God refuses a request, you argue it is God's fault for refusing; yet if God grants a request, you argue it is His fault for granting. Essentially, your argument seems to be that, no matter what, it is God's fault.

With respect to free will, it is not an interruption of free will for God to refuse or oblige. We do not control God's free will, nor will He control ours. Predetermination does not affect our choice, our free will. It is merely God's knowing what will we choose. God always tries to help us and give us opportunities for doing what is right. He never turns away from us; it is we who turn away from God.

[Ethos]

You are arguing a contradictory point. If God refuses a request, you argue it is God's fault for refusing; yet if God grants a request, you argue it is His fault for granting. Essentially, your argument seems to be that, no matter what, it is God's fault.

With respect to free will, it is not an interruption of free will for God to refuse or oblige. We do not control God's free will, nor will He control ours. Predetermination does not affect our choice, our free will. It is merely God's knowing what will we choose. God always tries to help us and give us opportunities for doing what is right. He never turns away from us; it is we who turn away from God.

I believe you are misunderstanding my argument.

What's I'm saying is that god's refusal to grant a prayer solely because of what a person might do as free will would be an interruption of that free will. He is basically stating that a person does not in fact have "free will" because the decision to grant that prayer rests on the individual's predetermined choices.

Ethos

[Cedars]

I believe you are misunderstanding my argument.

What's I'm saying is that god's refusal to grant a prayer solely because of what a person might do as free will would be an interruption of that free will. He is basically stating that a person does not in fact have "free will" because the decision to grant that prayer rests on the individual's predetermined choices.

Ethos
I think I understand your argument well enough. Why do you assume that free will should guarantee that God gives us whatever we pray for? In other words, why do you assume that denying a prayer is an interruption of our free will?

[Ethos]

I think I understand your argument well enough. Why do you assume that free will should guarantee that God gives us whatever we pray for?

No you do not understand my argument at all.

I have no said we should be guaranteed anything. This isn't about who does or does not deserve a prayer being granted. This is about whether god is responsible when someone uses the benefits gained through a (hypothetical) granted prayer for evil purposes.

Ethos

[Cedars]

I understand your argument. You must not understand my response. Let me put it this way. You need a gun to hunt in order to provide for your family (you were blessed with a beautiful loving wife who gave you children). Later on, you find someone else and you shoot your wife with that gun. God gave you a gun to satisfy a need to feed your wife and children and you later use that very gun on your wife. It is your argument that it is God's fault for providing you the gun (because He knew that later on you would use it for an evil purpose)?

[Ethos]

I understand your argument. You must not understand my response. Let me put it this way. You need a gun to hunt in order to provide for your family (you were blessed with a beautiful loving wife who gave you children). Later on, you find someone else and you shoot your wife with that gun. God gave you a gun to satisfy a need to feed your wife and children and you later use that very gun on your wife. It is your argument that it is God's fault for providing you the gun (because He knew that later on you would use it for an evil purpose)?

No, the point is to question whether god does or does not bear some responsibility for the outcome since he knew what would eventually happen.

I don't believe "blame" is the correct word to begin wth.

Ethos

[Craig]

We often hear that our lives are not pre-determined, despite the fact that god "knows" what we will and will not do. The concept seems contradictory, however the explanation is that while god knows what we will do, it is still our free choice to do differently.

I'd tend to agree with you here, simply because I've heard no good arguments to explain how omniscience does not limit free will. But I wasn't under the impression that this is what you were arguing initially.

In this context, how is it not an interruption of free will for god to refuse a prayer he would otherwise grant because of what a person might choose to do with that benefit at a later time. He would be penalizing you for an act of free will and enforcing the premise of predetermination that is not supposed to exist.

Ethos

I still disagree. In this context, the person in question freely chooses to do the action with the negative consequence, just as God freely chooses not to grant the prayer. The other thing to consider is that it's not as though you know that you will not have your prayer granted because of a future sin. If God was to suddenly make Himself known before you and state "I will not grant your prayer unless you do this", then yes, I'd agree it's limiting free will. But because you are unaware as to whether God is going to answer your prayer or not, your ignorance means that your decision in choosing will not be affected.

[Ethos]

I still disagree. In this context, the person in question freely chooses to do the action with the negative consequence, just as God freely chooses not to grant the prayer. The other thing to consider is that it's not as though you know that you will not have your prayer granted because of a future sin. If God was to suddenly make Himself known before you and state "I will not grant your prayer unless you do this", then yes, I'd agree it's limiting free will. But because you are unaware as to whether God is going to answer your prayer or not, your ignorance means that your decision in choosing will not be affected.

Technically your choice is limited because unless god grants the prayer, you are unable to carry out the negative act. So by denying that prayer, god is effectively preventing you from committing a murder (as an example), however he is doing so on the basis of a decision made of free will, and as such his own decision to refuse the prayer (which would otherwise be granted) is directly contrary to that freedom.

I suppose the hypothetical is veering into omniscience versus free will, which hardly offers a reasonable explanation. From what I understand, omniscience does not interfere with our freedom to choose because while god may know what we will do, we do not. From our perspective, until we have made that choice, it is still within our ability to alter the result.

Ethos

[cpwill]

On a purely theological level, does god answer prayers while keeping in mind the unintended consequences of the result? And does he hold any responsibility for the outcome?

I ask because it would seem benign to grant someone a prayer when that person's intent is good, however the nature of free will would indicate that even god-granted prayers are subject to a potential "Monkey's Paw" type effect. While god may not interfere with free will, he is certainly cognisant of what a person will do in the future. Is god then at least partially responsible for the negative outcome of a situation made possible through his response to a prayer?

Ethos

:) good story, monkey's paw.

however, i would state that there are no "unintended consequences" (so to speak) with God; although this is tricky to deal with in a being that does not (fundamentally) experience time. In reality He is already solving any negative consequences of your or others actions before they are even doing it.

[Ethos]

:) good story, monkey's paw.

however, i would state that there are no "unintended consequences" (so to speak) with God; although this is tricky to deal with in a being that does not (fundamentally) experience time. In reality He is already solving any negative consequences of your or others actions before they are even doing it.

"Solve" in what respect? The consequences are not necessarily removed from personal or external victims. Obviously this is "solving" negatives from god's relative perspective, however that doesn't do much for those involved - much like claiming a pre-mature death in the family is "god's will".

In any event, this doesn't satisfy my basic premise - is god responsible for the negative consequences we experience when one of his gifts is used for evil?

Ethos

[Cedars]

No, the point is to question whether god does or does not bear some responsibility for the outcome since he knew what would eventually happen.

I don't believe "blame" is the correct word to begin wth.

Ethos
"Blame" or "bear some responsibility" is essentially the same. How would you re-phrase the scenario in Post #29 which I had built upon yours of a prayer for a firearm for a good cause and then later shooting the wife? Does God "bear responsibility" for giving you a firearm in the first place when He knew you would later shoot your wife? And does God "bear some responsibility" for NOT answering your prayer for a firearm because He knew you would later shoot your wife (assuming say, had you not got the firearm to hunt for food or trade in order to keep your family healthy and someone becomes ill because of your lack thereof)? From your standpoint, it is a no-win situation as far as GOD's responsibility is concerned -- He would "bear some responsibility" regardless (in other words, blame). What about YOUR bearing responsibility? If you insist that God must "bear some responsibility" for your own "later" actions in providing or not providing, then how would this ALSO not affect your free will? If you think that God bears some responsibility for what He does provide, then He must likewise also bear some responsibility for what He does NOT provide because He knows what will happen. Regardless of whether He provides or not, He has knowledge of what you will do. Your argument is essentially an irrational one because according to your logic, we have no free will but are victims of what God gives or doesn't give us according to His knowledge of what our choices will be. But again, going back to the post #29 example, God bestowed a gift of a firearm; it is your free will whether you first, accept it, and second, how you use it. Not to mention the other gifts of a beautiful loving wife and children; you not only misused the gift of a firearm but the gift of your wife as well. It is your free will that decides HOW to use that gift. I hope I am making myself clear, but I am sure you will tell me if I do not!

[Ethos]

"Blame" or "bear some responsibility" is essentially the same. How would you re-phrase the scenario in Post #29 which I had built upon yours of a prayer for a firearm for a good cause and then later shooting the wife? Does God "bear responsibility" for giving you a firearm in the first place when He knew you would later shoot your wife (assuming say, had you not got the firearm to hunt for food or trade in order to keep your family healthy and someone becomes ill because of your lack thereof)? And does God "bear responsibility" for NOT answering your prayer for a firearm because He knew you would later shoot your wife?

First of all I am not seeking to assign "blame" to god. Blame is assigned to the individual directly responsible for the action (the person in question). I am merely raising the question of whether or not god is responsible for enabling that action.

Secondly I haven't addressed the concept of an unanswered prayer. My hypothetical assumes the prayer is answered. Without doing so, god has absolutely no responsibility in the matter since he has not involved himself in the situation.



From your standpoint, it is a no-win situation as far as GOD's responsibility is concerned -- He would "bear some responsibility" regardless (in other words, blame). What about YOUR bearing responsibility? If you insist that God must "bear some responsibility" for your own "later" actions in providing or not providing, then how would this ALSO not affect your free will? If you think that God bears some responsibility for what He does provide, then He must likewise also bear some responsibility for what He does NOT provide because He knows what will happen.

To re-iterate, I don't consider non-action the same as action. God (or anybody else, for that matter) is responsible for what he provides, not for what he does not provide. Please also know I am not "insisting" on anything, only exploring a hypothetical. I generally prefer looking at theology in ways that do not entail an answer easily copied from scripture. I am interested in knowing how theists would look at such scenarios, hopefully without feeling too threatened in the process.

Ethos

[Cedars]

. . . If God was to suddenly make Himself known before you and state "I will not grant your prayer unless you do this", then yes, I'd agree it's limiting free will. . . .
Actually, even if God were to say that He would not grant a prayer "unless you do this," He is still NOT violating free will. The man could take what God granted and disobey. This topic is exactly what the Fall of Adam and Eve were all about. Obedience. Adam had everything at their disposal in the Garden of Eden EXCEPT the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But that tree of knowledge did not give Adam and Eve the knowledge of what was good and what was evil (if they did not already know what was right or wrong, they would not be guilty of sinning). No, what they did by eating of that tree was making themselves arbiters over God's moral law. "[T]he power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. Man is certainly free, inasmuch as he can understand and accept God's commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat of every tree of the garden. But his freedom is not unlimited; it must halt before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for it is called to accept the moral law given by God." (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor [The Splendor of Truth])

[Cedars]

First of all I am not seeking to assign "blame" to god. Blame is assigned to the individual directly responsible for the action (the person in question). I am merely raising the question of whether or not god is responsible for enabling that action.
I do not mean to split hairs with you, but really, the definition of blame is "1. To hold responsible. 2. To find fault with; censure. 3. To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.)

Secondly I haven't addressed the concept of an unanswered prayer. My hypothetical assumes the prayer is answered. Without doing so, god has absolutely no responsibility in the matter since he has not involved himself in the situation.
I am addressing that as well because I feel you OUGHT to address that concept because if the person did not get what they wanted, then God answered and the answer was "no." Or the flip side of the argument might be made that if God HAD provided some "answer" to a prayer but did not, then God could also "bear some responsibility" for NOT answering (assuming, again, that had you not got the firearm to hunt for food or trade in order to keep your family healthy and someone becomes ill because of your lack thereof).

To re-iterate, I don't consider non-action the same as action.
They are different, yet the same. Both involve choice -- choosing to "act" or choosing to abstain from action.

God (or anybody else, for that matter) is responsible for what he provides, not for what he does not provide.
I would imagine that God is more than happy to take responsibility for what He does not decide to do as well as for what He does do.

Please also know I am not "insisting" on anything, only exploring a hypothetical. I generally prefer looking at theology in ways that do not entail an answer easily copied from scripture. I am interested in knowing how theists would look at such scenarios, hopefully without feeling too threatened in the process.
Ethos
I understand you are exploring a hypothetical. I have no problem with that.

God answers every prayer -- it is just that sometimes the answer is no. Regardless of whether the prayer is answered in the manner we wished for, this does not interfere with our free will because even when God does give us what we want, it is our choice (as with any gift), whether we accept or not, and it is our choice what we do with that gift.

[Craig]

Actually, even if God were to say that He would not grant a prayer "unless you do this," He is still NOT violating free will. The man could take what God granted and disobey. This topic is exactly what the Fall of Adam and Eve were all about. Obedience. Adam had everything at their disposal in the Garden of Eden EXCEPT the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But that tree of knowledge did not give Adam and Eve the knowledge of what was good and what was evil (if they did not already know what was right or wrong, they would not be guilty of sinning). No, what they did by eating of that tree was making themselves arbiters over God's moral law. "[T]he power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. Man is certainly free, inasmuch as he can understand and accept God's commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat of every tree of the garden. But his freedom is not unlimited; it must halt before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for it is called to accept the moral law given by God." (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor [The Splendor of Truth])

Well, this depends upon one's understanding of free will. If one defines free will as I have, by which I state that any coercive force that could influence one's decision prevents one from having truly free will, then yes, the scenario I described does mean that free will is violated.

Let's go with an extreme example: If I put a gun to your head, (I don't know why all of my examples seem to involve guns these days), and tell you that I'll kill you and your family unless you renounce your faith, I am having a coercive effect upon your decision making process. Yes, you might still decide to refuse to accede to my demand, but I'm not allowing you to decide for yourself devoid of any coercion. In effect, I'm working to influence the outcome of your decision. And even if you do refuse me, you would undoubtedly have considered what the consequence of your actions would be, a consideration and factor that simply would not exist nor potentially modify your decision if I lacked a weapon and simply told you to do it.

In our less extreme example, God telling you that He'll deny your prayer if you later do the negative act is coercive too. It basically comes down to "If you don't do what I want, I won't give you what you want". You may still reject what God tells you to do and commit the negative action, but you will have thought about the thing that you prayed for and wanted, and you'll have to weigh that against being able to do the negative action in the future. Again, its an example of someone trying to influence our decision making process. And under the definition I have provided, this violates the principle of free will. You may disagree that coercive actions violate free will, but that's another subject for discussion.

[Craig]

Technically your choice is limited because unless god grants the prayer, you are unable to carry out the negative act. So by denying that prayer, god is effectively preventing you from committing a murder (as an example), however he is doing so on the basis of a decision made of free will, and as such his own decision to refuse the prayer (which would otherwise be granted) is directly contrary to that freedom.

I suppose the hypothetical is veering into omniscience versus free will, which hardly offers a reasonable explanation. From what I understand, omniscience does not interfere with our freedom to choose because while god may know what we will do, we do not. From our perspective, until we have made that choice, it is still within our ability to alter the result.

Ethos

Oh I see. So you're stating that the negative act is one that necessarily depends upon the prayer being granted to occur. And it sounds as though one of your operating assumptions is along the lines of "If God acts in such a way so as to prevent you from having the maximal number of choices in life, for whatever reason, He's impinging upon your free will." If that's the case, then it would seem that God is constantly violating the principle of free will any time He directs a person in a certain way by eliminating options or choices, even if the person is not aware of these options or choices.

But here's a paradox: by answering your prayer in the initial hypothetical discussion you outlined, God could also be limiting your free will. If, for example, you pray that God will help you get a certain job and He does, you've now been limited from other jobs that you would have had the option to pursue had you not got the job you wanted. True, you did desire the job, so God was giving you something you wanted, but in doing so, He was also limiting your options in terms of other jobs you could pursue.

[Blueangel]

On a purely theological level, does god answer prayers while keeping in mind the unintended consequences of the result? And does he hold any responsibility for the outcome?
I think of prayer as a concentrated, directional stream of thought and that has positive psychological effects in itself. I see no difference between thinking over a situation and prayer.

I also see a Mass as a group mantra... a time to off load all the things that are bothering you and cleanse your thoughts.

[serenity]

I would imagine that God is more than happy to take responsibility for what He does not decide to do as well as for what He does do.


God makes mistakes????

[Ethos]

Oh I see. So you're stating that the negative act is one that necessarily depends upon the prayer being granted to occur. And it sounds as though one of your operating assumptions is along the lines of "If God acts in such a way so as to prevent you from having the maximal number of choices in life, for whatever reason, He's impinging upon your free will." If that's the case, then it would seem that God is constantly violating the principle of free will any time He directs a person in a certain way by eliminating options or choices, even if the person is not aware of these options or choices.

I may have made this too complicated. You are partially correct, but the violation of free will I am considering is less related to gods action than his decision-making process. To extend the example: if I ask for a gun with good intentions, god has the choice to grant that request or not. If he looks at my life and my intent and hands me a gun based on those criteria, there is not necessarily a violation of free will (see point below). However if god looks into my future and chooses to deny the gun because of a choice I will one day make (one directly related to the firearm), he would be denying my request based on my own free will, which wouldn't seem consistent.


But here's a paradox: by answering your prayer in the initial hypothetical discussion you outlined, God could also be limiting your free will. If, for example, you pray that God will help you get a certain job and He does, you've now been limited from other jobs that you would have had the option to pursue had you not got the job you wanted. True, you did desire the job, so God was giving you something you wanted, but in doing so, He was also limiting your options in terms of other jobs you could pursue.

Well this would be a different circumstance, although a fascinating one. You could make the argument that any prayer answered by god is an interruption of free will... however since you are the one making that prayer, it is assumed you accept that incursion, and are therefore making a decision of free will to have your life altered in ways you may not immediately choose.

Eventually the topic has been lost I think. Originally I wanted to look at whether god is to blame (as Cedars prefers) in even a small part when someone takes a gift and does evil with it; an evil that could otherwise not occur without god's help. The issue of free will was only an attempt to avoid the obligatory "well god wouldn't grant a prayer to someone who would do bad things later on" counter-argument.

Ethos

[Ethos]

God makes mistakes????

That isn't what Cedars said. Taking responsibility for what you do (and somehow, illogically, for what you "do not do") isn't necessarily an admission of error.

Ethos

[Cedars]

Well, this depends upon one's understanding of free will. If one defines free will as I have, by which I state that any coercive force that could influence one's decision prevents one from having truly free will, then yes, the scenario I described does mean that free will is violated.

Let's go with an extreme example: If I put a gun to your head, (I don't know why all of my examples seem to involve guns these days), and tell you that I'll kill you and your family unless you renounce your faith, I am having a coercive effect upon your decision making process. Yes, you might still decide to refuse to accede to my demand, but I'm not allowing you to decide for yourself devoid of any coercion. In effect, I'm working to influence the outcome of your decision. And even if you do refuse me, you would undoubtedly have considered what the consequence of your actions would be, a consideration and factor that simply would not exist nor potentially modify your decision if I lacked a weapon and simply told you to do it.

In our less extreme example, God telling you that He'll deny your prayer if you later do the negative act is coercive too. It basically comes down to "If you don't do what I want, I won't give you what you want". You may still reject what God tells you to do and commit the negative action, but you will have thought about the thing that you prayed for and wanted, and you'll have to weigh that against being able to do the negative action in the future. Again, its an example of someone trying to influence our decision making process. And under the definition I have provided, this violates the principle of free will. You may disagree that coercive actions violate free will, but that's another subject for discussion.
To coerce is to force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation. God does not pressure, threat or intimidate us into making a decision. God will try to influence our decisions, yes, and He will test us; but He never coerces. If God would say I will give you this if you will do that, it is not coercion because you still have the free will to say no, you will not do that exchange (you may know you will not get what you wanted, yes, but then, you did not have it in the first place -- which is why you requested it -- so there is no coercion now any more than before). Your free will would not be violated because you would be in the same position as before you had made any request.

[Cedars]

That isn't what Cedars said. Taking responsibility for what you do (and somehow, illogically, for what you "do not do") isn't necessarily an admission of error.

Ethos
Exactly. Thank you, Ethos.

[Cedars]

. . .Eventually the topic has been lost I think. Originally I wanted to look at whether god is to blame (as Cedars prefers) in even a small part when someone takes a gift and does evil with it; an evil that could otherwise not occur without god's help. The issue of free will was only an attempt to avoid the obligatory "well god wouldn't grant a prayer to someone who would do bad things later on" counter-argument.

Ethos
Ok, let me put it this way. We are each ALREADY born with gifts. Take a person, for example, who was gifted to be a great surgeon. This surgeon saved many lives but somewhere along the way developed a taste for carving people up in unnecessary ways (sorry, crude, I know, but I had to think of a very clear example). Now, God gifted this person; and according to your hypothetical, it is possible that God may "bear some responsibility" for gifting this person with exceptional skill. IMHO, this is ludicrous -- and I think it will be in yours, too. It is no different than God providing a firearm for a man for a good purpose and then that man later shoots his wife. In this kind of argument, everything will be God's fault in the end -- not ours. It is the Fall of Man all over again.

[Cedars]

That isn't what Cedars said. Taking responsibility for what you do (and somehow, illogically, for what you "do not do") isn't necessarily an admission of error.

Ethos

I should probably clarify my response in post #46 that it is not illogical for us to take responsibility for actions we choose not to take. For instance, in New Orleans, why they (the powers that be who made the decision) did not take action and strengthen the levy when they knew it would fail under certain circumstances. (I am not wanting to place any blame here, just giving an example.)

[Craig]

To coerce is to force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation. God does not pressure, threat or intimidate us into making a decision. God will try to influence our decisions, yes, and He will test us; but He never coerces. If God would say I will give you this if you will do that, it is not coercion because you still have the free will to say no, you will not do that exchange (you may know you will not get what you wanted, yes, but then, you did not have it in the first place -- which is why you requested it -- so there is no coercion now any more than before). Your free will would not be violated because you would be in the same position as before you had made any request.

Upon reflecting, it would appear that the operational definition of "free will" that I have been using here seems to involve free will being violated if one is coerced or if someone tries to influence one's decisions. It seems to me however that if someone is trying to influence you they're essentially trying to manipulate your choice, meaning that you're not able to exercise your decision making process as you would without outside interference. Whether or not this qualifies as impinging upon free will is not entirely clear to me now that I think about it, and I think it largely depends upon the position one chooses to take on the subject.

[Craig]

Eventually the topic has been lost I think. Originally I wanted to look at whether god is to blame (as Cedars prefers) in even a small part when someone takes a gift and does evil with it; an evil that could otherwise not occur without god's help. The issue of free will was only an attempt to avoid the obligatory "well god wouldn't grant a prayer to someone who would do bad things later on" counter-argument.

Ethos

Sorry, my bad. In response to your initial point here, I would say yes, He is partially responsible. If you know with certainty that something is going to happen (as God would) as a consequence of a gift you give, then you have the capacity to act as a preventative agent to stop evil. Even if you're not the one who is committing the act, the foreknowledge of it gives one a responsibility to prevent it if possible.

But then again, the Bible is pretty clear that God allows evil to occur, and this would certainly fall under that situation. So maybe it's a non-issue, save for the fact that it places us back squarely in the realm of the Problem of Evil.

[serenity]

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenity
God makes mistakes????


posted by Ethos
That isn't what Cedars said. Taking responsibility for what you do (and somehow, illogically, for what you "do not do") isn't necessarily an admission of error.

I'm not sure it's so clear. "Taking responsibility" implies the POSSIBILITY, or at least the EXISTENCE of error, of doing something wrong. So I believe it is solely and specifically a human trait.

If my understanding of believers' notion of God is correct (and it might not be, I know) then whatevr God does is by definition right. There is no wrong, so there can be no "taking responsibility" for his actions.

[Ethos]

Ok, let me put it this way. We are each ALREADY born with gifts. Take a person, for example, who was gifted to be a great surgeon. This surgeon saved many lives but somewhere along the way developed a taste for carving people up in unnecessary ways (sorry, crude, I know, but I had to think of a very clear example). Now, God gifted this person; and according to your hypothetical, it is possible that God may "bear some responsibility" for gifting this person with exceptional skill. IMHO, this is ludicrous -- and I think it will be in yours, too. It is no different than God providing a firearm for a man for a good purpose and then that man later shoots his wife. In this kind of argument, everything will be God's fault in the end -- not ours. It is the Fall of Man all over again.

In-born traits or talents aren't what I'm talking about here, so this example isn't germane to the topic. There is a significant difference between god granting someone a request they have made and god giving natural talents that were inherent to a person's biology.

Ethos

[Ethos]

I'm not sure it's so clear. "Taking responsibility" implies the POSSIBILITY, or at least the EXISTENCE of error, of doing something wrong. So I believe it is solely and specifically a human trait.

If my understanding of believers' notion of God is correct (and it might not be, I know) then whatevr God does is by definition right. There is no wrong, so there can be no "taking responsibility" for his actions.

It is perfectly clear unless you want to make unsupported inferences.

For instance, I take full responsibility for the words I am posting in this response. Accepting responsibility for having posted them in no way indicates the comments themselves are in error.

Ethos

[Atticus]

It is perfectly clear unless you want to make unsupported inferences.

For instance, I take full responsibility for the words I am posting in this response. Accepting responsibility for having posted them in no way indicates the comments themselves are in error.

EthosThat's not what serenity was suggesting, and I think you know that.

Once again, we find ourselves in an interminable argument over definitions, and my observation is that at each turn you've decided to define things narrowly enough that you will inevitably get only the answer you want.

[Ethos]

That's not what serenity was suggesting, and I think you know that.

Once again, we find ourselves in an interminable argument over definitions, and my observation is that at each turn you've decided to define things narrowly enough that you will inevitably get only the answer you want.

Then perhaps I don't know what exactly Serenity is suggesting.

There is no need to quibble over definitions in this case. The definitions of "responsibility" are entirely clear. "Error" is not implied in those definitions.

You may also take note that Serenity made an inaccurate conclusion based on Cedars' comment. I simply added a correction, one that Cedars agreed with.

Ethos

[Cedars]

Upon reflecting, it would appear that the operational definition of "free will" that I have been using here seems to involve free will being violated if one is coerced or if someone tries to influence one's decisions. It seems to me however that if someone is trying to influence you they're essentially trying to manipulate your choice, meaning that you're not able to exercise your decision making process as you would without outside interference. Whether or not this qualifies as impinging upon free will is not entirely clear to me now that I think about it, and I think it largely depends upon the position one chooses to take on the subject.
I can think of no instance where God has coerced (i.e., forced to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimation) anyone to do anything. In the case of Abraham and Isaac, for example, Abraham was never forced to sacrifice Isaac; but he was willing to do it without question -- such was his trust in God. The ultimate outcome of Abraham's test is that Abraham followed God's command perfectly, and he was rewarded for his trust in God. He followed God's commands, and his son, Isaac, was saved.

Adam, on the other hand, instead of trusting God, chose to do what Eve offered from the serpent and rejected God's moral law by disobeying. Whereas Adam and Eve failed, Abraham passed his test with flying colors (and Abraham's test was, in my opinion, a much harder test of obedience). Where God prevented Abraham from sacrificing his only son, God sent His own son (Jesus) to be a sacrifice to bring redemption for all men. Whereas Adam brought about the Fall of Man, Jesus brought about the redemption of man. The story of Abraham shows that we must place absolute trust in God even though we do not always understand. I think all Christians would agree with Pope John Paul II that "the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. Man is certainly free, inasmuch as he can understand and accept God's commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat of every tree of the garden. But his freedom is not unlimited; it must halt before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for it is called to accept the moral law given by God." (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor [The Splendor of Truth])

It is true that Christians believe that God only influences us to do good. But He leaves it up to our free will to decide whether we will allow ourselves to be influenced by God or by Satan. God's influence is a gentle guidance; it does not impinge upon our free will because we are still free to reject that guidance.

[Cedars]

Sorry, my bad. In response to your initial point here, I would say yes, He is partially responsible. If you know with certainty that something is going to happen (as God would) as a consequence of a gift you give, then you have the capacity to act as a preventative agent to stop evil. Even if you're not the one who is committing the act, the foreknowledge of it gives one a responsibility to prevent it if possible.

But then again, the Bible is pretty clear that God allows evil to occur, and this would certainly fall under that situation. So maybe it's a non-issue, save for the fact that it places us back squarely in the realm of the Problem of Evil.
God allows evil to occur because to not allow it would not allow us the choice to do good or evil. Ultimately, it is our choice on whether we choose to obey God or not.

[Cedars]

I'm not sure it's so clear. "Taking responsibility" implies the POSSIBILITY, or at least the EXISTENCE of error, of doing something wrong. So I believe it is solely and specifically a human trait.

If my understanding of believers' notion of God is correct (and it might not be, I know) then whatevr God does is by definition right. There is no wrong, so there can be no "taking responsibility" for his actions.
For everything God does God is responsible. Christians believe God is responsible for creating the earth; in my mind this implies no error. Ethos and I are of a like mind that responsibility does not have to include error. Responsibility is the "1. state, quality, or fact of being responsible. 2. Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden." (American Heritage Dictionary)

[Cedars]

In-born traits or talents aren't what I'm talking about here, so this example isn't germane to the topic. There is a significant difference between god granting someone a request they have made and god giving natural talents that were inherent to a person's biology.

Ethos
Whether we receive gifts before we are born (in-born traits) or after we are born (something that we have perhaps prayed for), it is still our decision (our free will) on how we use that gift. As I said in post #57, God allows evil to occur because to not allow it would not allow us the choice to do good or evil. Ultimately, it is our choice on whether we use the gift we requested for good or evil.

[Cedars]

That's not what serenity was suggesting, and I think you know that.

Once again, we find ourselves in an interminable argument over definitions, and my observation is that at each turn you've decided to define things narrowly enough that you will inevitably get only the answer you want.
Sometimes different words mean different things to different people. Some words have multiple inferences. It is always best to clarify what we mean in order to understand another viewpoint.