Critiquing: STR Ruined the Experience of Corporate Prayer for Me

April 24, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Corporate prayer ruined — Misuse of scripture — Navigating misunderstandings — Gift of knowledge — Handling speculations

---

Overview

This content from #STRask – Stand to Reason addresses three main issues: handling corporate prayer amid scriptural misuse, understanding Jesus’ references to the cross, and debating extra-biblical speculations. The discussion reflects the perspectives of Greg Koukl and Amy Hall, who respond to questions from listeners.

Outline and Explanation

1. Handling Corporate Prayer Amid Scriptural Misuse

• Main Issue: The concern is raised about the misuse of scripture and misunderstanding of how God works during corporate prayer.
• Presenter’s Stance: The presenters argue that recognizing misuse and misunderstanding is a virtue, not a vice, and suggest focusing on the core intent of prayer rather than its imperfections.

Explanation: The logical coherence here is strained by a tension between recognizing misuse and maintaining unity. While it is reasonable to encourage tolerance, the claim that recognizing misuse is virtuous can conflict with the need for genuine communal prayer.

Key Quote: “What standard reason has done is give an insight into things that help others see when prayer is done inappropriately.”

Logical Inconsistency: The presenters advocate for tolerance and yet endorse a critical stance, which may foster divisiveness rather than unity. This dual approach can be seen as contradictory because it encourages both discernment and acceptance without clear guidelines on balancing the two.

2. Understanding Jesus’ References to the Cross

• Main Issue: The discussion revolves around whether Jesus’ followers would have understood his references to the cross and being crucified before it happened.
• Presenter’s Stance: They argue that while the followers understood crucifixion as a means of death, they did not grasp the deeper significance of Jesus’ predictions until after his resurrection.

Explanation: The coherence here hinges on the distinction between understanding a concept and comprehending its specific application. The argument that followers could not fully understand until post-resurrection aligns with the notion of progressive revelation.

Key Quote: “They didn’t know what he was talking about… Because it was so foreign to what they expected of the Messiah.”

Logical Inconsistency: The presenters imply a certain level of understanding that contradicts their claim of complete ignorance. This inconsistency weakens the argument by suggesting that followers could partially understand but not fully comprehend, creating a gray area in their level of awareness.

3. Debating Extra-Biblical Speculations

• Main Issue: The question addresses whether it is sinful to think about or debate topics like the existence of life on other planets.
• Presenter’s Stance: The presenters suggest that while curiosity is not sinful, engaging in debates on such speculative matters might be unproductive and potentially divisive.

Explanation: This stance is logically coherent in recognizing the difference between harmless curiosity and potentially disruptive debates. The emphasis on maintaining focus on core theological principles over speculative debates is practical and reasonable.

Key Quote: “God can do whatever he wants… There could be aliens all over the planet.”

Logical Inconsistency: The presenters’ dismissal of the likelihood of extraterrestrial life while allowing for God’s omnipotence creates a paradox. If God can do anything, outright dismissal of such possibilities seems inconsistent with that admission.

Critical Analysis from a Non-Believer and Moral Non-Realist Perspective

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

1. Straw Man Fallacy: Misrepresenting opposing views to make them easier to dismiss. For instance, implying that critics believe all corporate prayer is invalidated by misuse.
2. Confirmation Bias: Favoring information that confirms pre-existing beliefs. The discussion often selectively highlights evidence that supports their theological stance.
3. Appeal to Authority: Relying on the authority of certain theologians without addressing counterarguments or alternative interpretations.

Example: “Hugh Ross, who is an astronomer, astrophysicist, and has a Christian organization…”

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

1. Claim: “Recognizing misuse of scripture is a virtue.”
   • Obligation to Substantiate: This assertion needs empirical backing or logical explanation to validate why recognition alone qualifies as a virtue.
2. Claim: “No expectation that the Messiah would die and rise again.”
   • Obligation to Substantiate: Historical evidence or scholarly consensus is necessary to support this claim thoroughly.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

• Method to Test Alleged Promises: Empirical methods or historical-critical analysis could test the promises and prophecies mentioned, especially concerning the followers’ understanding of Jesus’ references.
• Degree of Belief: It is essential to map the degree of belief to the degree of available evidence. For instance, the certainty with which the presenters dismiss extraterrestrial life should be proportionate to the empirical evidence supporting or refuting such a possibility.

Conclusion

The content provides a platform for discussing the nuances of scriptural interpretation and theological speculation. However, the logical inconsistencies and unsubstantiated claims highlight the need for a more rigorous approach to validate assertions and maintain logical coherence.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.