On Prayer and Crossed Fingers

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Very good points.

Of course the background incentive is the desire to offer something of hope without being disingenuous. The problem arises when you personally can’t see any hope for them yourself. At such times, being blatantly honest is generally a really bad idea. Thus the phrase, “let me know if there is something I can do” is very good… assuming it was genuine.

I personally do any of 5 things in such cases;
1) offer the best sign of hope that I can think of at the time; perhaps, “this too shall pass” or something similar.

2) “Let me think about that” and truly contemplate if there really is something that I can trigger such as to help (often finding money to give to them) and holding to a degree of integrity.

3) don’t except the notion that if I can’t think of it, no one else could either. And thus I refer the problem to someone else who might know something. Thus, "let me see if I can find someone to help with that".

4) On very rare occasion I will say, “I’ll pray for you”, but that is only because I know how to do it to get results. The problem is that at times, what is happening is actually the better thing for the person than they realize or could fathom. Thus my prayer effort might well lead to “Don’t touch the issue. Let it ride”. So I tend to hold off such a phrase until I can be more assured that I actually will get real-world positive results. And also, I tend to just go do it rather than say that I am going to. That way, I don’t get into silly arguments as to whether there really is a God with someone who really isn’t in a position to be bitching, religious or not.

5) I might even give a little explanation; “A “miracle” is merely a positive occurrence that no one thought could happen. We aren’t bright enough to rationally dismiss miracles. I know. I have arranged too many myself, even to my own surprise. So don’t fall into that silly trap of contemplating the negative (worrying) to the point that you presume it and perhaps even cause it. Since you think that you can’t fix your situation, perhaps it is time to let go and let someone else take the reigns for at least a short while.”

22

That makes a lot of sense, Litenin’.

23

Nothing wrong with hokey! I can feel your positive thoughts bouncing around the atoms and stars right now.

24

That’s great, FJ. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be yourself, at all. But what about extending yourself? How do you do that? How do you relate to a weird, corny, old person when you’re visiting that person in the hospital, as they lay dying?

25

Thanks Fuse.

I’m not sure I agree with the severity of the split you’ve made between words and actions. Surely in this case words are actions? If someone is starving, then words versus actions is a reasonable distinction to make. But when no actions in this traditional sense are possible, words are actions. Further, why just provide food to the starving? Doesn’t that just provide a superficial level of psychological relief also? Or to put it less radically, would you deny a man dying of lung cancer a cigarette?

26

Right, because that makes sense. “Oh look at me, I’m so hip and cool, I can’t tell people I’ll pray for them.”

:unamused:

Teenage mentality.

27

I like the way you put that. I’d personally emphasize the importance of sympathy though, rather than hope. Or to put it another way, I think it’s possible to completely accept one’s circumstances - that whatever happens happens - without a fatalistic attitude. I think a good friend helps a person in need to overcome fear. Hope can do that, temporarily - and that’s fine - but maybe simple friendliness provides a more stable way of relating.

28

Agreed, anon. I’ve found, in dealing with friends who are going through horrible/tragic circumstances, that sometimes the best thing to do for them is just be there. The situation may be unchangeable, but to know that someone is there and feels for you can give consolation.

Example – I had a friend whose boyfriend of several years died in a car accident. She was inconsolable, but everyone tried to console her all the time. Me, I knew there was nothing I could say. I’d been through close friends dying suddenly, and there is no consolation. I wasn’t going to lie and tell her he was in heaven or anything like that, and I wasn’t going to tell her it was going to “be okay”. I just told her to cry if she needed to. She’d come over to my apartment sometimes and sit on my couch and cry for an hour while I sat next to her, crying with her, my heart breaking for her. I never said a word, because she didn’t need or want me to say anything. There was no hope to be offered, just grief to be felt, and the fact that I was willing to let her deal with that grief without becoming uncomfortable with her tears and trying to make her stop helped her more than any words of comfort ever did, she later informed me.

29

Thanks for that, Blurred. Did you find the situation kind of awkward and unbearable? Or was it just natural for you? If it was totally natural, might it have been more unnatural if it was a different person?

Maybe some people are just better at this kind of thing than the rest of us.

30

I didn’t find it awkward and unbearable, which is where I think most people run into trouble. It came quite naturally to me. I do have the capacity to be an extremely emphathetic person, which has caused me problems in the past, but as I grew up and learned to get a handle on it has become more of a benefit than a nuisance. I do think some people are better at “this kind of thing” than others, some people just can’t handle emotional displays. The feeling of helplessness that comes when you really can’t do anything for someone can be very uncomfortable and frustrating, not everyone in that situation is going to be able to put aside their own discomfort for the benefit of the other person, and you can’t really blame someone for that.

31

I’ve got to try to put myself out there more. I’m not that used to it, so it’s really hard work for me.

32

Don’t fall into the trap of judging words by their connotation and thereby altering their true definition.

Hope == the inspiration to continue
Threat == the inspiration to run
Faith == the inspiration to continue in a particular direction.
Sympathy == agreeing with the feelings of others (but not necessarily willing to do anything about it).

33

I don’t think I’ve fallen into a trap. Hope is fine, but I think overemphasized by most people. Just my opinion.

If someone were dying on purpose, would you emphasize hope? Or just sympathy? Or would you call the police?

I don’t mean to get into a whole other discussion - I’m just using that example to point out the limitations of hope. I think direct sympathy, on the contrary, is always valuable.

34

Yeah, everyone thinks that. :mrgreen:

It always depends on the circumstance. To interfere with someone else’s life is a serious matter to me. If they are dying “on purpose”, I would first evaluate if I could actually offer any better alternative. If not, I MIGHT give them hope to continue (in what they were doing). On the other hand, if I saw a means to more fulfill their deeper interests of which they have given up hope, I might touch them so as to give them a new perspective and thus change their current faith in dying. No one is born with the hope of dying.

Haven’t you heard the phrase, “I DON’T want your sympathy!!”, or “If you can’t provide anything actually useful, then just go away or shut the hell up”.

“Sympathy” has negative connotations that are more real than actual “hope”.

35

I don’t see how that makes any sense though. Earlier in this thread, Liteninbolt displayed a good conceptual understanding of sympathy. An atheist might not want his prayers; therefore, he wouldn’t say to that person “I’ll keep you in my prayers”.

A highly sympathetic person wouldn’t display sympathy in a way that would offend or be repulsive. A sympathetic person might have to settle for doing nothing at all.

36

To me too. I don’t pray for anyone since I don’t really know if there is Something to pray too so I won’t even say that I am - to someone who does believe. It would be a lie.

But I will too say that I am thinking of them…as I am. Saying those words does show a connection, and gives a Presence, which is our own. And like anon, I’ll close my eyes and bring my loved ones into my thoughts and hold them in my heart. I intuit grace/heart/spirit in the universe though not a god…well, maybe a small percentage I do…intuit that is.

Giving our presence to others is a concrete thing - saying we’re going to pray for them, especially when those prayers are not answered…is no more than a bandaid on a deep wound. Who would put a bandaid on a deep wound? But we may sit with someone, be present to them and hold their hand, as their wound is being attended to.

we always try to control the situation and most often it is our own discomfort that we can’t deal with - that we feel we have to say something when someone’s loved one has died. Words really don’t help so why bother? For myself, I would prefer what I give. Just to simply look into the other person’s eyes - I’ll probably have tears in mine anyway (though it’s not importnt to) - and then just give them a long hug - hold them for a minute. And probably say “I’m here”. And that’s it. It’s all about presence unless what they need is to be truly alone.

I hate the crap that I used to even here in churches from the priests - "he is with god, she is in heaven. Be happy for him/her. “Or time heals all wounds.”

Ask yourself what you would want to hear - have done for you - and do that. Unless you know that person so well that they would prefer nothing. Basically, don’t talk, just be present. Presence is everything!!! Words are so meaningless at certain times.

The End.

37

I like the way you put that.

Definitely true. It’s my own discomfort I can’t deal with. That’s probably what this thread is about, ultimately, after all the various sub-topics come and go.

Me too. I don’t believe it’s sincere. But I do believe most Christians are sincere when they pray for someone they care deeply about.

38

Well, I don’t know, anon. It might be sincere from the priests.They may be conditioned to truly believe that, by the very nature of their beliefs. And perhaps, it is expected of them to say those things. But really, they ought to think up some other more helpful and spiritual things to say to the family to take the place of that nonsense. Unless that is what the person needs to hear. I wonder what a priest who truly knows the human heart and spirit would say - to someone in his care.

But then again, to some believers, they also must need feel the need to hear those things. That’s what keeps them going - it wouldn’t you nor myself but to them, it would. Also, to those who really do believe in the power of prayer or at the very least is comforted knowing that someone is praying for them in their need - it’s important for those people to hear those words by those people who also believe in the power of prayer.

The gift of presence and how it is given ought to always depend on the person who is receiving it.

39

That…is brilliantly written.

Anon.
You want to give people a connection from you. To let them know that your emotion, your heart, has a hold of them.
Why not simply state what is the connection?
They are in your heart. I would say to simply tell them this.
Many good alternatives have been given, but what about just saying the simple matter at hand?

What you feel is care and love for the person. Not “love” as the English language has, but Philia, as in Greek; from which philosophy receives a portion of its name.

I have you in my heart.
You are in my heart.

Or take it where I personally do and state the action, and not the emotion only.

My spirit is with you.

Many may not understand that last one well, but the literal of it is true.
I am truly giving the spirit, my essence, to them.
I do this by no more than simply telling them that I have done so. Now my spirit is implanted in their mind because I said so.
I will think of them in reverence in Philia, and they may think of me in like manner however they will.

I gave my presence, my spirit or essence, to them as a concretion of reliance.

But with this, I also hold, do not give lightly or casually.
It is a marriage of spirit, however brief or long.
So I don’t suggest people throw it around without giving the idea its full meaning; I did give you my spirit. That means you have me. I have a debt to you that I gave you.
I gave you the essence of myself; that is what I said.
If I say such a thing, I cannot then withhold the rest of myself and only give you my essence.
That is carelessness and hurtful as there is no good in letting people believe they have a comrade only to find it a dress without a person.

And when you carry the weight of commitment to any sentiment of giving of yourself to another in spirit; it’s noticed.

So my answer to your quandary:
What does the atheist give when they haven’t a god to give to the person through prayer?
You give yourself.
And truly; I would rather have you than your god.

40

Communication is action. I don’t disagree. But if a problem requires action on a level above communication, then communication falls short of doing something about it. If someone dies an old woman of natural causes, then there’s not much to be done outside of being present with others. If on the other hand someone dies of a great injustice or preventable tragedy, then prayer and crossing-fingers falls short of doing anything. I have no problem with honest expression and telling other people how you feel. But I see the language of prayer and finger-crossing as being an often false comfort. Not always, but often.

People often try too hard to please one another with the least possible effort.