Is prayer just wishful thinking?

Introduced by David O'Rose

Notes on the 26/9/02 meeting of HKPC's Kowloon Branch

Reported by Steve Palmquist (moderator)

David introduced the topic by reading through his detailed handout, adding various supplementary comments throughout. He concluded by reminding us that he regards prayer as a deeply inward experience, and has intentionally focused on a variety of writers who portray prayer in this way.

Our "questions for clarification" time lasted longer than usual--over 45 minutes--on this occasion. It began with David clarifying in quick succession the following aspects of his position: even if there is no God, praying can still be a good idea, provided (as Kant argues) it empowers us to live a good life; the type of prayer being defended here is more or less the same as meditation; verbal prayer can be a helpful means to the end of establishing a meditative approach to life; ideally, such prayer should be a natural way of life, as ceaseless as breathing; such a view does not necessarily imply pantheism, but should be compatible with a variety of theological positions; if prayer is a form of communication, then it seems to require an "other", but in meditative prayer this "other" is conceived as being "in us" and perhaps even as being indistinguishable from the praying person; the purpose of prayer, therefore, is not to change God's mind, but to work on our own self- development, which might be thought of as making our own life as divine as possible; this seems impossible, yet it is a paradox that is affirmed by many great thinkers.

After David responded so well to this barrage of questioning, someone mentioned that, although his philosophy of prayer was now quite clear, he had said nothing about the question formulated in tonight's topic: is prayer, conceived in this way, just wishful thinking? He responded that it does not involve wishing at all, but experiencing. More traditional approaches to prayer do involve varying degrees of wishing, he admitted, especially in the verbal prayers of children. However, the more a person matures in his or her view of prayer, the less important this element of wishing becomes. Later, he jokingly called this "naughty praying", in contrast to the mature prayer that says "thy will be done".

When a monk in attendance noted that he regularly prays for world peace and that this is a form of wish, David warned that praying for world peace is more likely to bring about war, at least in the short term. Wishful thinking can produce surprising and even harmful results at times, because we often fail to realize the unexpected turn of events that would have to occur in order for our wishes to come true. Praying for world peace, for example, appears to be a prayer directed toward the good of other people; but it will not necessarily lead the person praying to be a more peaceful person. The more aware we are of our own inner reality, through meditative prayer, the more peaceful we can be in our outer relationships with others.

Someone then suggested rephrasing the evening’s question as follows: Do people deceive themselves when they pray? David responded that verbal prayer, especially when it involves the expression of wishes, can often be a form of self-deceit. However, if prayer is sincere it nevertheless often serves as a tool for the person's self-development; it encourages a person to develop a disposition that will set her or him on the right path. But what about people who devote their entire lives to verbal prayer and never succeed in developing such a disposition? For them isn't prayer more like an addiction, an "opium"? In response to these questions David admitted that for many people prayer is little more than a means of self-comfort. A good priest, however, will encourage worshippers to root their prayer in real-life experience in such a way that it will be much more likely to elicit such a change of disposition.

At this point I asked David to explain how we can think philosophically about prayer if, as he stated in his introduction, books such as The Cloud of Unknowing tell us we must suspend our powers of critical thinking if we are to understand prayer properly. He explained that such books are supposed to be tools leading us into a mystical experience; they are not supposed to be philosophical texts. But learning to have such mystical experiences of oneness and inner knowing does not in any way prevent us from understanding prayer philosophically, as in Kant's critical analysis, where the value of prayer is explained in terms of its moral usefulness. One person asked whether the mystical approach might lead to schizophrenia, since it seems to split the rational mind off from the rest of our experience. David explained that this is highly unlikely to happen, because the mystical does not involve any such splitting, but rather requires us to develop an "aware ego" that enables us to experience both sides of the opposition together. It's a mark of maturity rather than a psychological problem.

The last question raised "for clarification" challenged David on a point of methodology: according to the traditional concept of God in Christian theology, God has no "needs"; but David's approach to prayer seems to deny this, since it implies that in some way God needs to experience union with human beings as much as the reverse. David seems to have been using two conceptual "toolkits" interchangeably: one where things mean what they say and the other where they do not--and apparently "never the twain shall meet". With this in mind, David's position seems to have a high degree of utility, yet it lacks validity. To this David responded by stating that the traditional concept of God's perfection that requires us to conceive of God as having no needs is inadequate. The highest form of perfection must encompass imperfection as well. Therefore it is possible to conceive of God as being perfect in one sense (the highest sense) even though God is imperfect in a lower sense, whereby human beings communing with God in prayer actually fulfills a divine need.

Due to the extended time devoted (deservedly) to this "initial" questioning, the small group sessions were shorter than usual--only about half an hour. Discussion in the group I joined was focused mainly on the perceptive questions raised by one young member, who revealed at the end that (to my amazement) he is only 14 years old! He began by noting a paradox that appears to plague all prayer: either prayer is purely conceptual or purely experiential; in the former case it makes sense but has an impossible goal (to talk to God), while in the latter case it makes no sense, because what it aims at is already a reality. Either way, prayer appears to be pointless. I responded by comparing this problem to a similar paradox Kant calls attention to: only the prayer of faith can be answered; but one who has faith does not need to pray, because he or she will already be convinced that God will insure that the best result will occur. Either way, prayer seems pointless, because in the former case (faithless prayer), God won't listen, and in the latter, there's nothing for God to hear! However, Kant did not think this means all prayer is pointless. Another group member pointed out that a higher purpose can be recognized when people pray in groups, because then the prayer generates a loving energy that elevates the entire group to a higher plane. David (also in our group) added that silence in the presence of transcendence is the key; and if the transcendent is within us, then a legitimate purpose for prayer can be to learn to see oneself more clearly. Such prayer involves a mindfulness, an awareness of self-deceit, that goes beyond the level of critical judgment.

I also noted that, in Kant's analysis of prayer a certain degree of wishing can be acceptable, provided it boils down to being a wish for self-improvement. David suggested calling this a "mystical wish" rather than an "analytical wish". I added that Kant views verbal prayer as something like a crutch: it can be very useful when a person needs it, as when a person has a broken leg; but when the leg heals (when the person matures spiritually) it is better to throw away the crutch than to continue depending on it when we do not need it. I also made use of this opportunity to challenge a view David had expressed earlier, that Kant favored the analytical to the exclusion of the mystical. My understanding of Kant is that he saw the potential for these two to work together, very much in the way David suggested in his introduction. The young questioner then stated that all of this still seems to indicate that praying is a pointless activity, or at least that IF there is no God, then all forms of prayer except Kant's prayer-for-moral-self-improvement are of no use. I agreed with him on the latter point, on the grounds that the best approaches to philosophy always allow for a suspension of belief, such as that implied by his "if" clause, so that doubt is a possibility, but NOT a necessity.

I was happy to see that the young questioner in this small group spoke up more during our closing session with all the groups meeting together again. He began the discussion by suggesting there are different types of prayer and that the question at hand should be answered differently for different types, or for different ways of understanding what prayer is. He claimed prayers of petition would seem to be pointless in all situations, since a good God would already do the good thing without our asking for it. If there is a God, then some other types of prayer, such as prayers of thanksgiving or lamentation, would seem to have a proper place. But if there is no God, then only a Kantian approach to prayer would seem legitimate. To this insightful summary, I added that the last level/type is the most philosophical, because philosophers generally adopt an agnostic point of view, at least for the sake of argument, even if they have private reasons for believing something beyond this narrowest acceptable position.

After another brief exchange on the issue of pantheism, the monk in attendance asked us to reflect on what we actually do when we pray, and whether or not such prayer requires a belief in God. One person replied that we are looking for inner strength. Another said we typically resort to prayer when we need comfort, or when facing times of transformation, as in near death experiences. A third person distinguished between prayer as a form of communion, which seems possible without believing in a God "out there", and prayer as a form of communication, which does seem to require belief in an external God and is typically used for consolation. To these suggestions, the monk replied that we typically pray for happiness (for ourselves and others) and that prayer is always primarily an internal activity. Its result is to give us a healthy mind, and this in turn can have an immediately positive effect on our bodies. He added that in Tibetan tradition prayer is sometimes called the "wish path", and that its positive effects on the mind are taken to justify even prayers for world peace and the like. For in so doing, we project our good wishes from the world of mind into the physical world, where they then have a real effect!

After some discussion of how his view relates to analytical thinking and to prayers of rejoicing, the monk further clarified wishing (and therefore also prayer) can actually be unhealthy if we approach it as a form of grasping after what we want. But if instead we use the wish in a positive way, to influence our mind for the better, then it will also have a direct effect on the physical world. One member noted that such a view accords well with various New Age tendencies, but may be based on an illusion: we tend to think the world has actually changed when in fact we are just looking at it in a different way, becoming aware of aspects we just didn't notice previously. David concluded by reminding us of his view that this whole issue can be explained as part of the inevitable dance of all opposites, including good and evil—a comment I felt adequately summed up an evening of extremely stimulating conversation and debate on a topic that is rarely discussed in such an objective manner.

++++

As usual, the meeting ended with suggestions for future topics. The following responses were given (somewhat vaguely formulated, due to lack of time):

- the choice between remaining as a normal commonfolk and withdrawing from the world and becoming a monk

- pantheism

- thinking vs. wisdom

- freewill

Return to the home page of HKPCâs Kowloon Branch.

Return to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.

This page was uploaded on 23 September 2002.