An atheist asks Christians about prayer

There's a YouTube channel called, The Atheist Voice, hosted by a guy named, Hemant Mehta. He calls himself, “The Friendly Atheist” and he really is kind of friendly. I say, “kind of” because he still uses a lot of the same, frustrating arguments that other atheists use – like creationists don't believe evolution because they don't understand it – but he's much less snarky and condescending than the truly obnoxious atheists like Dawkins and Nye.

I knew that friendly atheists exist but they're sometimes hard to find. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 17% of Americans claim to not believe in God. Many of them are just your average Joe who may be a neighbor or coworker but they aren't militant about their atheism. It's those atheists who are very vocal about it, like those who start a blog or host a convention discussing atheism, who we hear from so they are the ones who seem to represent the entire group.

Mehta has one video titled, 78 Questions for Christians. Kudos to him for not calling it, “78 Questions Christians can't answer” or something like that. I've always been annoyed by titles like that – not just because they're incredibly presumptuous but I have yet to see such an article that lives up to its title. Of course, even though Mehta didn't say these questions have no answers, he clearly seems to think they are difficult to answer. His motive appears to be to make Christians uncomfortable which might lead them to question their beliefs. It's a common tactic.

It's not unusual for someone, especially a lay person, to not understand everything about a subject. If someone isn't able to calculate the acceleration rate of a falling object, for example, that's not evidence against gravity! Likewise, if a Christian isn't sure how to answer some critic, it's not evidence against Christianity. Also, some of these type of questions are pointless or are poorly premised. Think about the old, gag question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” To say either yes or no condemns the person who answers. The correct response is point out that the premise of the question is flawed: “Your question assumes that I used to beat my wife.” When engaging with a critic, don't get trapped by their logical fallacies.

Obviously, I can't answer all 78 of Mehta's questions in a single post. Neither will I write a 78 post long series addressing them. However, he did ask several questions that seem to center around prayer. It will be those questions I intend to respond to here. I've numbered the questions according to how Mehta numbered them in the video but I've rearranged them in my answer.

10) Whose prayers does God answer?

11) And if it's ultimately God's will what happens, why even bother praying?

We can see from the questions that Mehta has a very rudimentary understanding of what prayer is. For example, what does it mean for God to “answer” a prayer? Judging by the Mehta's list of questions about prayer, Mehta certainly believes “prayer” means “asking God for things” and “answered prayer” means “God gives you what you ask.” I could paraphrase the two questions above as:

Who gets what he asks?

If nobody gets what he asks, why even bother praying?

It sounds a little shallow when I phrase it like that, doesn't it? That's because it is shallow. Mehta has caste God as a year 'round Santa Claus and, every day, we get to tell Him what we want in our stocking. Just think about this: what kind of relationship would you have with your child if he only ever talked to you when he wanted something? And if you didn't do everything he asks, he would stop talking to you? If my children were like that, I'd be both very hurt and very angry. Yet this is apparently how Mehta thinks our relationship with God should be. I've written before about how people have a false idea of who God is, and then claim He must not exist because they can't find a god who acts like they imagined.

Jesus gave His disciples a model of prayer, often called the Lord's Prayer. He said, “Pray like this....” If you examine the prayer, you'll see that includes things like acknowledging God as our Father, praising Him, desiring His will to be done, and asking Him to forgive our sins and keep us away from temptations. Of course, we do also ask Him to help meet our needs – our “daily bread” - but Metha seems to think that's all prayer is.

Have you ever heard the child's prayer of grace? “God is great, God is good. Thank you, Lord, for this food.” What a wonderful prayer! Praise – thanksgiving – adoration – all presented in a few simple words. If all Christians prayed like this – praising God, seeking His will, asking for forgiveness and seeking His guidance – then revival would break out in America.

James 4:3 says, “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” I know I'm not a model Christian and I can't say my prayer life is where it should be. But if I spent all my prayer time telling God what I want Him to do for me, I would feel more spoiled than edified. Unfortunately, too many Christians spend their prayer time focusing more on themselves than God.

8) If your son or daughter were dying – and I hope that never happens – would you just pray for them or would you take them to a doctor?

9) And if you say you'd do both, which one do you think has more of an impact?

Unfortunately, my son and daughter are dying. My step sons are dying, too. My wife is dying. My mother and siblings are dying. My wife's family is dying. I'm dying. Everyone reading my blog is dying. Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” It's not a question of if you're dying – it's only a question of when. And, yes, prayer is THE most important thing I can do for my children, my spouse, my family, and my readers – especially if death is imminent. It's my prayer that they will all seek Christ, ask for His forgiveness, accept Him as their Lord, and be saved.

If my child were sick or hurt, yes, I'd take him to the doctor. I would pray that God would help him recover, that He would give the doctors and nurses wisdom, that He would give my son comfort, and give me peace. Above all this, though, I pray that my son comes to Christ. Let's face it, doctors can't stave off death forever. One day death will claim everyone I love and, at that time, all the doctors in the world are useless. But if my prayers have been answered, then they will have had an infinitely greater impact.

12) If you have cancer right now, what's going to help you more: drugs or prayer?

13) Let's say you have an amputated limb. Would prayer ever bring it back?

There's a video on YouTube by a group called, Why Won't God Heal Amputees? It's a list of 10 questions every Christian must answer and the first question is, why won't God heal amputees? I'll maybe write a detailed response to each of the 10 questions sometime but, for now, let me talk about the first question. Certainly, Jesus is able to heal us. Luke 22:50-51 tells us that Jesus healed the ear of Malchus after Peter had cut it off with a sword so I know that Jesus is able to heal even a severed limb. It's just that I don't expect Him to miraculously heal people today like He did during His ministry.

Jesus overtly said that He did miracles to demonstrate His authority. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus healed a paralyzed man to prove He had the authority to forgive sins. In John 11, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead to show Martha that He is the resurrection and the life. When Jesus appointed His disciples, He gave them the ability to perform miracles including healing the sick and raising the dead (Matthew 10:7-8). This was to show their authority to preach in God's name. But now we have the Scriptures to evidence His authority and the need for miracles has passed.

Jesus has promised us an eternity where there is no more pain or sorrow or death but paradise is not on this earth nor in these bodies. This is a cursed world where there is sickness and disease. Does Metha think we should be able to pray and no one should ever die or even get sick? I guess he does. Like I said, he has a very rudimentary understanding of prayer.

16) If you had an exam coming up, what do you think would help you more: prayer or studying for the test?

Heck, why even bother with school – or even a job? I could just stay home and pray that God mails me a paycheck! Really, Metha? God never commanded us to do nothing. In fact, He condemns laziness. Matthew 5:16 says, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” We should strive to be the hardest workers, the best students, the friendliest neighbors, etc. And, yes, we should seek God's help while doing this. There's an old saying that says we should work like it depends on us and pray like it depends on Him!

18) What matters to God more: the quantity of prayers or the quality of prayers?

19) If it's the quantity that matters, how come the most popular team doesn't always win the Super Bowl?

20) And if it's the quality that matters, how come people we really love, people who are close to us, how come they die no matter what we say to God?

21) Is it possible that your prayers have no supernatural effect and only serve to make you feel better?

22) And if that were true, would you ever admit it?

1 Thessalonians 5:17 says, “pray without ceasing.” If you were to walk through the mall with your spouse or drive down the road with your child, wouldn't you talk to them? Well, we're never truly alone because God is always with us so I try to talk to God just like that – like He's sitting there next to me. I tell Him I love Him. I thank Him for all He does for me. I tell Him about things I struggle with and ask for His guidance.

I believe that, as we draw closer to God, His will becomes our will. It's just as the prayer, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done....” When that happens, we tend to worry less about how things affect us. When things are going well, some Christians will say, “God is blessing me.” When things aren't going well, some Christians will say, “God is testing me.” I think if we prayed like we should, more Christians would start to realize, “It's not even about me.”

Lord, help my team win the Super Bowl. Don't let anyone in my family get sick or die. That's how a 5-year-old prays.

O Lord, I come to You with praise. You alone are good. You alone are worthy to be worshiped. Let me know Your will and give me the strength to be obedient. Forgive my sins and let me rest in Your mercies. Let me trust in You for everything I need and let my thanksgiving never end! Amen! These are the kinds of prayers that get answered!

It's because they're created that makes it a good analogy!

In my last post, I asked, “How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?” Most people get the joke. My list of possible answers are actual comments that creationists often hear from evolutionists when discussing the subject of evolution so I just applied those same responses to changing light bulbs. I discussed this some time back on Fakebook and one evolutionist didn't seem to get the joke. He responded with his own question: “How many creationists does it take to tell the difference between inanimate objects and animate objects?” He seemed to be rehashing a usual point made by evolutionists – namely, that it's not a fair analogy to compare living things to created things because created things can't reproduce and, so, can't evolve.

Evolutionists sometimes claim that similarities between different kinds of animals are due to their evolutionary relatedness. However, creationists correctly point out that things that aren't evolved can also be similar. An airplane, for example, has certain things in common with a car. A bridge has certain things in common with a building. When creationists raise “similar created things” examples, it's then that evolutionists respond by saying that created things are not good analogies of living things because created things don't reproduce.

I watched a video a while back where an evolution-believer called in to a radio show and raised this objection during a discussion with Kent Hovind. Kent had talked about similarities in different types of bridges. Here are the exact words of the evolutionist:

That has nothing to do with evolution... because a bridge is a horrible analogy to a living thing. I mean, it has nothing in common with a living thing.... And they [living things] reproduce which is one of the fundamental tenets of evolution. I mean, a thing can't evolve unless it reproduces. Here, we're talking about reproducing systems. Explain to me what this has to do with a common Designer because I really don't get it.

He obviously doesn't get it. Neither did the evolutionist I cited above get it. As a matter of fact, most evolutionists who use this objection don't get it. Thankfully, I'm here to help them.

Like I've already said, evolutionists often use similarities between animals as evidence of evolution. It's true that evolution could explain similar features in closely related species. Of course, created things can also have common traits.  For example, they say humans and chimps are similar because they share a common ancestor. However, a boat has certain similarities to a car but we know that the boat didn't “evolve” from a car nor did the car “evolve” from a boat. So we see that similarity between two things is not necessarily the product of evolutionary relatedness.

With this article, I've included a photo of a wooden model used by artists as a reference. You can see why it makes a good reference – it looks like a person. The resemblance is intended because the artist wants to draw a person, but it's difficult for a real person to stand unmoving for hours. It's not similar because it's descended from humans! Neither does it have a common ancestor with humans! The resemblance is only by design.  

Created things can be similar to other created things for a variety of reasons. They might be built using similar materials. They might be built for similar purposes. They might be built by the same person who added his own particular style. But any similarity between created things is certainly not the result of evolution! In like manner, then, the similarities between a dinosaur and a bird could just as easily be explained by design.

Something that is created does not reproduce. It doesn't share a common ancestor with any other created thing. If created things can be similar, then similarity between living things isn't de facto evidence for evolution.  Stop telling me that the forelimbs of humans, birds, and whales are similar because we have a common ancestor because it can just as easily be explained by common design.  The rebuttal that living things shouldn't be compared to created things completely misses the point of the analogy.  It's precisely because they're created that makes it a good analogy!

Get it?

How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?

In the decades I've spent discussing evolution and creation online, I've just about heard it all. When I say, “all,” I mean I've heard virtually everything evolutionists have to offer. At a certain point, it becomes the same things over and over. I often wonder if militant skeptics ever have an original thought.

On one hand, it becomes frustrating when I have to push through all the word games they play. On the other hand, I sometimes get a chuckle out of their arguments. They sometimes sound like how a 4^th grader might sound when discussing things way over his head.

Let me give you an example of something funny. Have you ever explained to an evolutionist how ridiculous it sounds to think an ape turned into a man, only to hear him respond, “Individual animals don't change; populations change!”? They say things like that to make it seem like creationists don't understand evolution. In reality, it's a red herring intended to derail the conversation.

It occurred to me, responses like this could be answers to light bulb jokes. Think about it: Q: How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb? A: None, individual light bulbs don't change. Populations change! See what I mean? The joke practically writes itself. What are some other common, evolutionist arguments that could be the punchline to a light bulb joke? I've thought of a few:

How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?

Two: one to change the light bulb and the other to call creationists “science deniers.”

One, but he doesn't know how the light bulb got there in the first place because that's not part of the theory.

One, but even though he doesn't know how the first light bulb got there, he knows it wasn't by design.

None. The kind of change we're talking about takes millions of years.

None. Under the right conditions, a light bulb could just appear without any intelligent input.

None. If the light bulb burned out, it obviously was unfit.

None. Creationists are just lying, ignorant, stupid liars and they only want the light bulb changed because they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I'm sure there are some others so if any reader can think of one, just leave a comment.  But as funny as these sound, the correct answer is rather sad. The truth is found right there is the Bible but unbelievers refuse to see it because they are lovers of darkness! Read the words of Jesus in John 3:19-20.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Why must “faith” mean “blind faith”?

Some time back, I came across a blog titled, Counter Apologist. One post on the blog was, Faith is Belief without Good Evidence. In the opening paragraph, the author states he is critiquing the Christian definition of faith by Tom Gilson. Unfortunately, the author did not link to Gilson's definition nor even attempt to summarize it so I have no way of knowing how good his criticism is. For that matter, I can't even say how good Gilson's definition of faith is. I found some of Gilson's writing online but I still can't be sure which article the Counter Apologist is addressing. Oh, well.

Anyway, the two definitions of faith offered by the Counter Apologist are:

1. Belief without good evidence.

2. Pretending to know what you don't know.

On the Aron Ra, WikiQuote page, I found the following quote (bold added):

Remember how Jesus said that he came not to bring peace but a sword; that he would divide husbands from their wives and children from their parents all on behalf of beliefs based on faith? Remember also that faith, (an unreasonable assertion of complete conviction which is not based on reason and is defended against all reason) —is the most dishonest position it is possible to have. Any belief which requires faith should be rejected for that reason.

So we have several examples of atheists attempting to redefine faith in such a way as to mean having no evidence for what we believe. They even go so far as to say if we have evidence, we can't have faith.

It's typical for critics of Christianity to want to define words in their favor but they usually limit it to more technical terms like science or evolution. Faith, however, is a word they otherwise seek to separate from science. If scientists have the right to define evolution (actually they don't have the right but they think they do), then the correct meaning of faith should be determined by the religious community, right? No. Skeptics of faith also think they have the right to define our terms as well.

Unfortunately, even some compromising Christians have even gotten in on the act. In an article titled, Top Ten Signs That You Dont Understand Evolution At All, one theistic evolution claimed you don't understand evolution if, “You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.” He goes on to say:

“Blind faith” does indeed have pejorative connotations in secular usage, but RayCo lends credence to these undertones in a way that no True Christian™ should. That’s because the Bible talks about “blind” religious faith, and its description is anything but negative. In John 20:29, Jesus declares that those who “believe without seeing” are “blessed” (contrasting them with “doubting” Thomas, who asked for proof).

Such comments misrepresent the Bible. People like this don't seem to understand that Thomas was refusing to believe the testimony of the apostles! They had seen the Savior alive but Thomas refused to believe until he saw Jesus for himself. This is the same attitude many skeptics express today. Jesus's ministry on earth only lasted a short time. The vast majority of people in history were not alive during the few, short years of His Incarnation. If the standard for believing in Christ is that we see Him with our own eyes, then most of humanity is doomed. However, that's not the standard. We have the written accounts of His resurrection and we can believe the things written in the gospels and be saved.

The irony is that, while evolution-believing Christians may claim blind faith is necessary to believe the Bible, they seem to only believe those parts of the Bible which they feel have the doubting Thomas kind of proof. They don't believe in creation on "blind faith," for example. Instead, they have adopted the secular theories of proud atheists and have twisted the Scriptures to accommodate the godless theories of secularism. How sad.

There's a little confusion about the difference between belief and faith. Generally, people attach a religious connotation to the word faith but I don't agree that's entirely appropriate. Let me give you an analogy. In English, we have the words belief and believe. One is a noun and one is a verb but we understand that they basically carry the same root meaning. Are you with me so far? OK. Now, in the New Testament, the Greek words faith and believe are basically the same too!

The noun, pistis (πίστις, Strong's word 4102), is generally translated as “faith” rather than “belief.” Its cognate verb, pisteuo (πιστεύω, Strong's word 4100), is generally translated as “believe” rather than “have faith.” So, as we read the Bible, believing and having faith is a distinction without a difference. Do we believe in God? Do we believe Jesus is the Christ? Do we believe the things in the Bible? If so, then we have faith.

On Webster-Dictionary.org, we find these definitions of faith:

1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.

So, one definition of faith is to believe something declared by another based on his authority and veracity. One thing that strikes me about that definition is that it describes a lot of people who believe in evolution. Think about this: most people aren't biologists or paleontologists or geologists or scientist of any kind. They have not seen the alleged evidence for evolution. For example, I would estimate that more than 99.99% of the people in this world have never laid eyes on an actual fossil of a supposed hominid ancestor. Instead, lay people rely on the authority and veracity of the scientists who have studied the evidence. As a matter of fact, even the majority of scientists haven't seen the actual fossils of supposed hominid ancestors – they've only seen photographs or plaster casts and read the papers of people who have seen them.

Belief in evolution, then, is nothing more than faith in the opinions of people who we assume should know. Mind you, too, that most evolutionists have faith in people who they have never even met. Do you know who writes the science textbooks used in the schools in your neighborhood? What's his name? Where does he live? Where does he work? Where did his get his degree? The students – even the teachers – don't know either. Kids read a science textbook and believe in evolution because... well... it's in the science textbook!

Some of the critics reading this right now are seething. They're ready to tell me how the material in the textbooks isn't just the opinions of some random nobody who snagged a book deal. It's the end result of decades of research, conducted by countless scientists, and compiled by experts in the field. Never mind that the errors it contains will have to be corrected in the next edition – the current edition is cutting edge! My point in raising this is that it's not necessarily wrong to have confidence in a book authored by someone you've never even met. Faith doesn't necessarily mean blind faith. It's also having confidence in the testimony of another based on his authority and veracity.

I believe that Moses witnessed the plagues on Egypt. I believe he saw the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea. I believe he ate the manna that God provided for His people daily. I believe he heard the voice of God in the burning bush. And I believe the accounts of the creation and the flood that were revealed to him.

I believe the apostles knew Jesus; that they saw Him turn water into wine, heal lepers, give sight to the blind, walk on water, calm the storm, and raise the dead. I believe His words they recorded: that He is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. I believe they saw Him die and saw Him alive again!

I believe the Bible for many of the same reasons skeptics believe in evolution; I have been convinced of the truth of it. It's not unreasonable. It's not blind faith. I will not let some tortured definition of faith shame me in questioning my faith nor trick me into trusting only “scientific” evidence.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then FAITH cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:11-17