The Problem(s) With Prayer

I have issues with prayer. First of all, I don't believe prayer works. Second, I believe that even if prayer were a valid form of communication or intercessory action it causes certain problems for the one receiving the prayers. Let's examine these problems:

Prayer is Confusing!

Imagine you're a god and your followers communicate with you via prayer –– that is to say, telepathic means by either speaking out loud or thinking specific things. Your task is to listen to every single one of these prayers and answer them according to some method of prioritization and feasibility. It probably wouldn't be too difficult if you had one or two followers or maybe even 10. But what if you had a million or a billion followers? With each follower asking for different things (some of which are bound to be in direct conflict with each other) how do you even keep them straight?

Prayer is Favoritism!

Once you've gotten all of these prayers your task is answering them all. You can answer them with a "Yes," "No," or "Wait." The ones you answer with a "Yes" are obviously more feasible or have a higher priority than the others. But what makes one prayer more feasible than others?

If little Billy asks for snow in July because his friend is dying of cancer and wants to be able to sled before he dies, why wouldn't it be within your power to make that happen? Billy's heart is obviously in the right place and when he says this prayer I'm certain he means it earnestly. Somehow these types of prayers always seem to be answered with a "No."

If Martha can't find her keys and prays for help (and you know she'll eventually find them anyway, once she calms down and thinks about it) why would you choose to answer that one over Billy's? It doesn't make any sense, but this is what we see happening all the time. Does this mean you like Martha more than Billy or his dying friend? It kind of seems that way.

How do you, as a deity, get around showing favoritism when it's perfectly clear you'll never be able to please everybody?

Prayer is Contradiction!

In the following verses Jesus said some variant of, "Whatever you ask in my name it shall be given to you."

• Matthew 21:22
• Mark 11:24
• John 14:13-14
• John 15:7
• John 15:16
• John 16:23-24

Having said this, did Jesus realize that people would be asking for things that directly contradict either (a) god's will (b) the laws of nature (c) other prayers or (d) anything that would actually be beneficial to humanity? If he knew any of these do you think he would have said it? And if he knew that people would ask for things that are never fulfilled would he have been so cavalier in making such a promise? I think not.

Prayer is Showmanship!

All of the supernatural points aside, praying has become an art form for many a religious person. Instead of doing it quietly and humbly as a personal conversation between you and your god, you insist on doing it out loud using the most eloquent words you can think up, hurling praises and flattering your deity for everyone to hear. You think it makes you pious. I think it makes you look ridiculous. Do you honestly think your god is impressed with the flapping of your arms or the wavering of your voice?

Prayer is Inaction!

Have you ever stopped to think that the time you spend praying could be put to better use actually doing something? Sure, praying for somebody makes you feel like you're helping them but has anybody ever averted a real, tangible crisis by praying instead of acting on it? If you can think of a single instance I'd love to hear about it.

Prayer is Short-Sighted!

Think of all the things about which you've prayed. How many of those things benefited more people than just you? How many of those things benefited more than just the people you know? How about more than just your community? Or your country?

Why don't the people who really believe prayer works pray for world peace? I mean really put your heads together and earnestly ask your god to bring about a change in people's hearts and minds so that we see the end of war, hatred and violence? Honestly, do you think that's a worthwhile goal? If not, why not?

Let's start thinking, people. Please.

The Problem With God's Purpose

The belief in a personal, intervening deity presents another problem in my mind. Theists believe that a god created the universe and everything in it with a final, triumphant pinnacle of creation that is humans, for whom this god cares above all else. So this god's purpose is A, B, or C as follows:

A: God's purpose is to create the universe and everything in it.
B: God's purpose is to care for human beings.
C: God's purpose is to create the universe and everything in it, and to care for human beings.

God's Purpose is to Create the Universe

If this is a god's purpose, then a more appropriate stance toward a god is deism. That is to say, a supernatural agency ("The Supreme Architect") created the universe and everything in it, setting it into motion before stepping back and impassively and impartially watching it all work out. This god doesn't intervene in human affairs and had no special reason for creating us. There is no afterlife, no Heaven or Hell, and no holy text on which to base one's life. This view is compatible with science, since the god has no personal characteristics and the natural world is what it is without any supernatural phenomena like miracles or prophecy.

The problem with this, however, is that if this god's sole purpose is to create the universe then there was (a) no need for this god to exist prior to the creation of the universe, and (b) no need for this god following the creation of the universe. A deist's stance, in this case, is still a little bit silly because even if a supernatural agency did create the universe, there's absolutely no reason to wonder about it, worry about it, or inject it into any conversation because it has lived out its purpose and now – for all it matters – doesn't even logically exist.

For a theist, however, this presents a wholesale contradiction to everything they believe. For one, it means their god doesn't care about them any more than an ant or a deer. Second, it means there's no reason to believe in an afterlife because their god has already done its job and now – for all it matters, again – doesn't even logically exist. It's pretty clear that theists believe their god has another purpose other than just being a creator.

God's Purpose is to Care for Humans

If this is a god's purpose, then there's no reason for the god to exist prior to the advent of homo sapiens. This means that the universe was formed via natural processes without the intervention of a supernatural agency, the Earth came about via natural processes without the intervention of a supernatural agency, life spawned, evolved, and finally got to the point where homo sapiens emerged.

The problem is this: if there was no god prior to homo sapiens emerging, what prompted the spontaneous generation of this god? Is it the sudden influx of human souls? Did humans will this god into existence specifically because they felt too weak and insecure to care for themselves?

Another problem is this: if this is god's purpose and everything in the universe happened according to natural laws, then why do theists so adamantly reject and mock things like the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution? Why not embrace these ideas as truths and continue on their merry way of feeling like a special creation in an otherwise un-special world?

Another problem is this: if this is god's purpose, then why are humans suffering and dying en masse, when all it would take is a little bit of intervention on the god's behalf? No, I'm not trying to argue the old "Why is there suffering in the world" line, but you have to admit that a being whose sole purpose is to care for humans has proven itself ineffective throughout history. It's pretty clear that theists don't limit their god to this single purpose, so that brings us to the final option.

God's Purpose is Twofold

If a god's purpose is to create the universe and everything in it and to care especially for human beings, then my first question is this: what was this god doing prior to creating the universe and human beings? There's no reason to believe that this god existed a nanosecond prior to "In the beginning" and no reason to further believe that this god existed a nanosecond prior to "Male and female, God created them."

If this god's purpose is to do both of these things, then both of these things should have been created in tandem so as to give god its purpose and start of its existence with any degree of logic. Since no creation myth gives an account in accordance with this logic, then it's difficult to figure out why any such god should be believed as existing.

If this god's purpose is contingent on two conditions - the universe existing and human beings existing – then why weren't humans created before (or, at the very least, at the same time as) all the other plants and animals that this god doesn't necessarily care about as much? Doesn't that seem backward? I'm sure there's a wonderful apologetics argument for this, such as "God saved the best for last, as we are the pinnacle of His creation" or "God knew what humans would need to survive and built all of the infrastructure for us beforehand." Both of these are fairly silly because this perfect, personal creator god is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing and could have designed humans in such a way that all of the crazy infrastructure wasn't necessary. As in my argument against souls, this god could have simply created a universe that was solely habitable for souls and foregone all of the physical universe nonsense.

In my opinion, a god with both of the purposes of creating the universe and caring especially for human beings doesn't make any more sense than a god with either purpose and only raises more questions as to the nature and/or origin of its existence in the first place. And that doesn't even take into account its motives or methods of creation and…ahem…caring.

Let's start thinking, people. Please.

I Have No Soul

I have several problems with the concept of a soul (or spirit, or whatever you may choose to call it). Aside from the argument for lack of evidence, there are issues facing a person who claims that humans have souls that are created by God and that outlive the body on a separate, spiritual plane of existence. I'll outline these issues as follows:

If I Have a Soul, Why Do I Need a Body?

This first question stems from the idea that God creates human souls (I'm not sure when) and implants them or attaches them to the fertilized egg at conception so that the bundle of cells becomes a viable human. Never mind that 25% of these "viable humans" will be naturally aborted or miscarried without intervention from humans. What I don't get is this: God's ultimate plan for everybody is that their souls reside in Heaven with Him eternally and that we are all happy, healthy, and free of sin. So…why do I need a body? If my soul would be happy in Heaven then why can we not forego all of the formality, suffering, and nonsense and just get right to the end goal? If God cares nothing at all for my body and only wants my soul, then He should have just created my soul in Heaven directly. It's reasonable, it's simple, it's loving, and it accomplishes the goal with zero room for error.

Where Was My Soul Before I Was Born?

Since we're assuming that God creates souls, but don't know when He does it, we might assume that He created my soul a long time ago and was waiting for my parents to find each other and conceive the body into which He would ultimately place my soul. This begs the question(s): how long was my soul around before it was joined to my body, and where was it? If my soul was in heaven with God waiting to be transplanted, then I find it particularly disturbing and despicable that He wouldn't have just left me there. After all, Heaven is where He wants me to end up, isn't it?

If my soul was not in Heaven with God, then where was it? What other existential plane is there on which my soul may have sat in wait for a body? The flip side to this question relies on the idea that souls don't exist prior to being joined with a body and that God creates them at the point of conception (kind of a chicken-and-egg argument, in my opinion). This brings us to my next question.

When Does God Create Souls?

If, statistically, 25% of all pregnancies end in natural abortion or miscarriage then we have to question when, exactly, God is creating these souls. Is there a period of time during which the bundle of cells is under observation and in a probationary period before God deems them worthy of being joined to a soul? If not, and God joins the soul immediately at the time of conception, then why does He deem some souls lucky enough not to have to undergo the suffering of mortality and get a "Go Straight to heaven" card? Is He showing favoritism, or is He just shooting dice with these souls and they happen to hit the jackpot? If these souls were destined to end up in Heaven without having to struggle through life, then why did He bother with their conception (obviously wasted energy and resources for nothing) and bonding of their souls at all? He would have already known where they were going, because they never got to exercise their free will (a central tenet of religions which I find incredibly contradictory).

Why is God Still Creating Souls?

God presumably knew prior to creating the first human soul that He would have to mourn their poor decisions, deal with sin, and eventually sacrifice His son for their forgiveness. The question then arises: why did God – angry at Adam and Eve for sinning – command them to go out and make more sinners?! To whom does that make any sense at all? Not to me. So perhaps my biggest question is why God is even creating souls at all. If I were in charge, I would have just let the two sinners die, send their souls wherever they needed to go, and call it good enough – an experiment that turned out poorly and from which I can learn a valuable lesson.

Why Does My Soul Not Define Me?

If we have non-corporeal souls that outlive us, then whatever defines who we are should be contained in that soul. That is to say, our personality, our compassion, our jealousy and anger and greed should not simply be a product of chemical reactions in our physical brains, but should transcend our bodies on the spiritual plane. If we have these souls, then they would not be affected by drugs, social pressures, local culture, or trauma. Regardless of what was happening to our bodies, we should always be exactly what our soul defines us to be. We know this isn't the case. Brain trauma sometimes causes an irreversible shift in a person's personality to the point where – behaviorally – they would be unrecognizable even to their own family. Drugs cause personality shifts and behavioral changes where people will do things and say things they would otherwise never do or say. It can be argued that moving to a different geographical location or immersing oneself in a different culture causes fundamental shifts in behavior and personality as well. We tend to change ourselves to suit our surroundings if we are unable to change our surroundings to suit ourselves.

How could this happen if we have an immortal soul? I don't think it could, and I have yet to come across an argument convincing me that this question isn't valid.

If I Have a Soul, Why Do I Need a Brain?

Even if my soul doesn't define my personality, then it is said that it is what gives me life. Religious people often claim that our brains are so complex and amazing, it couldn't possibly be reduced simply to electrical impulses and chemical reactions – an argument from incredulity. But why, if I have an immortal soul that gives me life, do I need a brain? Why doesn't my soul do that work? Why isn't my soul more actively and apparently involved in my living process? This may be the weakest of my problems with the soul concept, but it's still a problem.

If Animals Have No Souls, How Do They Live?

It is commonly accepted and stated as fact in religious circles that only humans bear a soul. Animals don't have souls and they don't go to Heaven or Hell. It seems odd then that animals have identical living processes to humans – that is, brains, hearts, digestive systems, etc. Why do we look the same as animals on the inside if we're so much different? Why are we made up of exactly the same material? This makes absolutely no sense. If humans have souls, then animals must also have souls because we can find no fundamental difference between animals and humans (who, as we all know, are still animals). I find it frustrating to think that any religious person could hold to this idea and even go so far as to construct some type of elaborate defense of this position that defies all logic and reason.

I Have No Soul.

Given that these questions are never answered, I have to operate under the assumption that I have no immortal soul. As such, I am not in any terrible danger of ending up in Hell and I have no reason to make myself subservient to an oppressive deity on the off-chance I might make it to Heaven. Instead, I'll act as though this life is the only one I get; that I should be kind to my fellow humans in the hopes that it will propagate to all and we'll live in peace; that my happiness here on Earth is my ultimate goal, so long as I don't harm others in my attempts to attain it; that I should not waste a single moment of my life bowing and scraping to an invisible person who doesn't care about my mortal existence anyway. I'll just be the best human I can be. Is that so bad?