The Twittersphere and blogosphere resound with confused nonsense about how to respond to theists' exhortations to pray for Richard Dawkins' health following his recent stroke.
First off, I have absolutely no problem with people praying for people, provided such action does not impede or detract from actual help or treatment offered to the sufferer. In other words, a bystander or cleric intoning a few sympathetic words in prayerful seclusion, or amid a gathering of like-minded folk, does not cause an issue. If, however, an emergency paramedic were to kneel passively with clasped hands while their patient lay suffering and unaided, that would very definitely cause an issue.
For all I care, let every theist on Twitter pray their backsides off for Richard Dawkins and for every other human with a significant ailment. It is no skin off my nose and (subject to the above considerations) causes no harm. If a theist believes that his/her prayers will have a beneficial effect on the person being prayed for, that is all well and good, provided that belief does not lead, directly or indirectly, to any otherwise avoidable action or inaction detrimental to anyone's welfare.
I start to see problems when theists feel the need to declare in public that they are praying for someone. Surely their almighty god can hear and respond to their prayers whether or not those prayers are shouted from the rooftops or trumpeted over social media. An omniscient, omnipresent god would hardly need a million retweets to bring a prayerful request for help to his attention.
"Ah," the theists respond, "you've missed the point. Retweets are not to get God's attention; they're to get the attention of other humans who can then join the prayers." But if that were a point worth making, it would presuppose that god's interest in and response to prayers depend on how many votes each prayer gets, rather than on the intrinsic merit of whatever is being prayed for.
I submit that public prayer is a disturbing form of sanctimonious and narcissistic exhibitionism. When such public prayer is aimed at a well-known and self-declared atheist such as Professor Dawkins, an element of irony is added into the mix, of which the theists themselves are definitely aware, for they are most certainly not stupid. They know that Professor Dawkins does not believe prayer has the slightest beneficial effect. If they believe otherwise, let them pray quietly, and let their god's consequent intervention serve as vindication of their belief.
The least helpful stance for the atheist community to adopt is to say, "Well, let them pray publicly; it's their way, after all, and it's nice to know that they are thinking of him." Yes, it is lovely to know that they are thinking (positively and helpfully) about Professor Dawkins, but it is not at all lovely to be forced into the dichotomy of (a) humour them quietly (a disingenuous, condescending standpoint) or (b) appear uncharitable by pointing out that their actions mean, at best, nothing to us.
I firmly believe that the majority of prayer-tweeting theists know fine and well that their assertions are as a red rag to many a bullish atheist, and thus are seen as a thinly veiled, ironic jibe at Professor Dawkins. As I say, pray in private, and let the outcome be your reward.
First off, I have absolutely no problem with people praying for people, provided such action does not impede or detract from actual help or treatment offered to the sufferer. In other words, a bystander or cleric intoning a few sympathetic words in prayerful seclusion, or amid a gathering of like-minded folk, does not cause an issue. If, however, an emergency paramedic were to kneel passively with clasped hands while their patient lay suffering and unaided, that would very definitely cause an issue.
For all I care, let every theist on Twitter pray their backsides off for Richard Dawkins and for every other human with a significant ailment. It is no skin off my nose and (subject to the above considerations) causes no harm. If a theist believes that his/her prayers will have a beneficial effect on the person being prayed for, that is all well and good, provided that belief does not lead, directly or indirectly, to any otherwise avoidable action or inaction detrimental to anyone's welfare.
I start to see problems when theists feel the need to declare in public that they are praying for someone. Surely their almighty god can hear and respond to their prayers whether or not those prayers are shouted from the rooftops or trumpeted over social media. An omniscient, omnipresent god would hardly need a million retweets to bring a prayerful request for help to his attention.
"Ah," the theists respond, "you've missed the point. Retweets are not to get God's attention; they're to get the attention of other humans who can then join the prayers." But if that were a point worth making, it would presuppose that god's interest in and response to prayers depend on how many votes each prayer gets, rather than on the intrinsic merit of whatever is being prayed for.
I submit that public prayer is a disturbing form of sanctimonious and narcissistic exhibitionism. When such public prayer is aimed at a well-known and self-declared atheist such as Professor Dawkins, an element of irony is added into the mix, of which the theists themselves are definitely aware, for they are most certainly not stupid. They know that Professor Dawkins does not believe prayer has the slightest beneficial effect. If they believe otherwise, let them pray quietly, and let their god's consequent intervention serve as vindication of their belief.
The least helpful stance for the atheist community to adopt is to say, "Well, let them pray publicly; it's their way, after all, and it's nice to know that they are thinking of him." Yes, it is lovely to know that they are thinking (positively and helpfully) about Professor Dawkins, but it is not at all lovely to be forced into the dichotomy of (a) humour them quietly (a disingenuous, condescending standpoint) or (b) appear uncharitable by pointing out that their actions mean, at best, nothing to us.
I firmly believe that the majority of prayer-tweeting theists know fine and well that their assertions are as a red rag to many a bullish atheist, and thus are seen as a thinly veiled, ironic jibe at Professor Dawkins. As I say, pray in private, and let the outcome be your reward.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments will be moderated so please be patient. All reasonable comments written in a clear, polite manner are welcome. Please include a name or pseudonym so we can distinguish commenters.