Critiquing: My Teenage Daughter Walked Away from God Because He Didn’t Answer Her Prayers for Help

November 27, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Daughter’s doubts — Unanswered prayers — Emotional expectations — Question of faith — Theodicy

---

Outline and Explanation

1. Introduction and Contextual Overview

The content addresses a question about a teenage daughter who walked away from her faith because she felt her prayers went unanswered and didn’t feel different after accepting Christ. This analysis evaluates the logical coherence of the response provided in the content.

2. Addressing Emotional Expectations

The response begins by acknowledging the emotional nature of the issue, emphasizing the subjective experience of faith:

“A lot of people who expect something different. It isn’t so much an issue of reason. It is a feeling like if God were there, he would have responded to my need and because he didn’t answer the prayer or I didn’t feel him, then he’s not really there.”

Explanation: While it correctly identifies that emotional expectations play a significant role, it overlooks the logical aspect of belief formation. The argument implies a dichotomy between reason and emotion, which can be misleading as rational analysis of evidence is essential in belief formation.

3. Unsubstantiated Claims and Logical Fallacies

The content makes several claims without providing substantial evidence, leading to logical inconsistencies:

“And so sometimes there’s a delay in our answer to prayer and a good prayer because there is something else that the delay is meant to work in our life.”

Explanation: This statement introduces a potential explanation for unanswered prayers but lacks empirical evidence. It assumes a purposeful delay without substantiating the claim, leading to a post hoc rationalization fallacy.

“Our task, he communicates through this foil of the demon discipling another younger demon that we are to seek stability in our convictions in our commitment, even when there’s not stability in our emotional experience.”

Explanation: The reference to seeking stability in convictions despite emotional instability relies on anecdotal evidence. It lacks a rigorous explanation of why stability in convictions should be maintained without empirical validation, introducing a circular reasoning fallacy.

4. Cognitive Biases and Social Conditioning

The response acknowledges the influence of social conditioning and cognitive biases:

“There is a way that Christians represent the emotional interior life of Christians that isn’t entirely accurate, but they’re socialized to talk and act this way because that’s the right way to do it.”

Explanation: While it accurately identifies social conditioning, it doesn’t address how these biases can lead to confirmation bias and groupthink, where individuals conform to the group’s beliefs without critical examination.

5. Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Throughout the response, there are claims that remain unsubstantiated:

“You have not because you asked not. Well, I asked and he said, well, you asked with wrong motives to spend it on your pleasures.”

Explanation: This claim implies a divine assessment of motives without empirical evidence. The obligation to substantiate such claims is critical to maintain logical coherence and avoid appeal to authority fallacies.

6. Methods to Test Alleged Promises

The content suggests that unanswered prayers might be part of a divine plan, but does not provide methods to empirically test these alleged promises:

“I don’t know what it was that she was praying about, but God says no to a lot of prayers. That doesn’t mean there is no God.”

Explanation: To critically evaluate the alleged promises, one could design controlled studies to test the efficacy of prayer. Without empirical testing, the claims remain speculative and fall into the category of special pleading.

7. Mapping Belief to Evidence

The content suggests faith should be maintained despite unanswered prayers, but fails to emphasize the need to map belief proportionally to the available evidence:

“The more that you can see the purpose of suffering, see that it’s expected, see that there are reasons for it, then when you come to a situation where you can’t understand the reason for it in your specific situation, at least you have something to hang on to.”

Explanation: This approach can lead to confirmation bias, where individuals seek explanations that conform to their existing beliefs rather than evaluating evidence objectively. A critical approach should emphasize adjusting beliefs based on the degree of evidence available.

---

Critique of Logical Coherence

1. Emotional vs. Rational Dichotomy

The response creates a false dichotomy between emotional experience and rational analysis. Both aspects are crucial in belief formation and should be integrated rather than seen as mutually exclusive.

2. Lack of Empirical Evidence

Several claims are made without sufficient empirical support. Statements about divine intentions and the efficacy of prayer should be backed by empirical data to maintain logical coherence.

3. Cognitive Biases

The acknowledgment of social conditioning is valuable, but the response does not adequately address how cognitive biases can distort belief formation. Identifying and mitigating these biases is essential for a rational evaluation of faith.

4. Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Unsubstantiated claims about divine motives and the nature of unanswered prayers weaken the logical foundation of the argument. Providing empirical evidence or clear rational justification is necessary to substantiate such claims.

5. Testing Alleged Promises

The response lacks a methodological approach to test the alleged promises of God. Empirical testing and controlled studies are necessary to evaluate the validity of these claims and avoid speculative reasoning.

6. Mapping Belief to Evidence

The content should emphasize the principle of proportioning belief to the degree of evidence available. This approach ensures that beliefs are grounded in reality and supported by empirical data, minimizing the risk of confirmation bias and irrationality.

---

For further discussion on the arguments presented, feel free to engage in the comments section.