Critiquing: Is God More Likely to Answer Prayer if More People Pray?

March 30, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Group Prayer Efficacy — Feeling Prayers — Timing of Prayer — Purpose of Prayer — Prayer as Struggle

---

Introduction

The content discusses whether the number of people praying affects the likelihood of prayers being answered. The discussion includes theological reflections, personal anecdotes, and references to scripture. The analysis is provided by two hosts, Amy Hall and Greg Koukl, who explore the nuances and complexities of prayer.

Outline and Explanation

1. Claims of Group Prayer Efficacy

The content questions if God is more likely to answer prayers when more people are praying. The primary claim is that there is no clear theological or empirical evidence to substantiate this idea:

• Quote: “I think that there are dozens and dozens of prayers that can be prayed with intensity and God doesn’t respond. I think there can be lots and lots of people praying and it makes a difference and lots of people praying and it doesn’t. I just don’t know.”

Logical Inconsistency: The statement reflects an inherent contradiction: suggesting both that the number of prayers can and cannot make a difference without a clear rationale or evidence for either position. This creates a logical inconsistency because the conditions under which prayers are effective are not clearly defined or supported by empirical evidence.

2. Feeling the Effects of Prayer

The content explores whether Christians can feel someone’s prayers for them, presenting it as a subjective experience rather than a biblically grounded phenomenon:

• Quote: “People have told me many times that if they’re going into a situation and they don’t know how they’re gonna face it and they’re asking for prayers and then they have a sense of peace and calm as they’re going into it, they do have a sense that the prayers have made a difference.”

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claim: The feeling of peace attributed to prayers lacks substantiation. The subjective nature of this claim makes it difficult to evaluate its validity. The obligation to substantiate such claims is crucial to ensure they are not merely anecdotal but grounded in measurable and repeatable evidence.

3. Timing of Prayer

The discussion includes whether praying at the particular time an event is occurring is more effective:

• Quote: “There are examples of this, historically, people are praying at the table because they don’t have food, it’s an orphanage. They’re praying and then they finish their prayer and then someone knocks on the door and leaves the food there for them.”

Cognitive Bias – Confirmation Bias: This example illustrates confirmation bias, where instances that confirm the effectiveness of timely prayer are remembered and emphasized, while instances that do not result in immediate answers are ignored or forgotten. This skews the perception of prayer’s efficacy.

4. Purpose of Prayer

The content suggests that prayer creates intimacy with God, fellowship with others, and brings glory to God, while also being a means to seek tangible outcomes:

• Quote: “Number one, it creates intimacy with God because we are pouring out our heart to Him, we’re experiencing that closeness, we’re expressing our trust in Him, we’re expressing our submission to Him.”

Logical Coherence and Testing: The purposes outlined for prayer, such as creating intimacy and fellowship, are not easily testable. While these may hold personal significance, they do not provide a basis for evaluating the empirical efficacy of prayer in achieving tangible outcomes. The content lacks a discussion on how these spiritual benefits align with or diverge from measurable results of prayer.

5. Addressing Prayer as a Struggle

The content acknowledges the difficulties and frustrations associated with prayer, citing various authors and personal experiences:

• Quote: “Every book that I’ve read on prayer acknowledges that prayer is a struggle.”

Logical Fallacy – Appeal to Authority: While citing authorities on the subject of prayer’s difficulty, the content falls into the fallacy of appealing to authority. The struggle with prayer, though widely acknowledged, does not necessarily validate the efficacy or the processes involved. It’s essential to differentiate between recognizing a common experience and providing empirical evidence for the claims made about prayer.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content repeatedly makes assertions about the effects and purposes of prayer without providing substantial evidence. Claims about prayer’s efficacy, whether regarding the number of participants or the timing, require rigorous substantiation. It’s not enough to rely on anecdotal evidence or personal testimonies. Empirical methods, such as controlled studies on the outcomes of prayer, could offer more concrete insights.

Mapping Degree of Belief to Evidence

The degree of belief in the efficacy of prayer should be proportional to the available evidence. Given the content’s acknowledgment of the uncertainties and complexities surrounding prayer, a more tentative stance would be appropriate. Encouraging critical evaluation and empirical investigation would strengthen the discussion.

Conclusion

The content raises important questions about prayer but lacks logical coherence and substantiated evidence in many areas. Claims about the number of people praying, the subjective feeling of prayers, and the timing of prayer need empirical backing. Logical inconsistencies and cognitive biases further undermine the arguments presented. A thorough, evidence-based approach is essential for a robust understanding of prayer’s efficacy.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section. Your thoughts and insights are welcome!