Critiquing: Can Christians Who Have Died Hear Our Requests for Prayer?

June 3, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Hearing Prayers — Omniscience Argument — Prayer Practices — Communication with the Dead — Logical Coherence

---

Introduction

The content in the PDF, titled “Can Christians Who Have Died Hear Our Requests for Prayer?”, addresses the question of whether deceased Christians can hear the prayers of the living and join in intercession. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, highlight any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims, and suggest methods to test the alleged promises of God mentioned in the PDF.

Logical Coherence and Inconsistencies

The central argument in the content is that deceased Christians cannot hear the prayers of the living because they do not possess omniscience. Several points need scrutiny for logical coherence:

Inconsistent Definitions and Applications of Omniscience:

The content argues that only God possesses omniscience and therefore deceased Christians cannot hear our prayers:

“Omniscience entails complete knowledge of everything.”

This definition is clear, but the application is inconsistent when discussing the potential for deceased Christians to have limited omniscience. The argument jumps from complete omniscience to the impossibility of any form of extended knowledge in deceased Christians without exploring intermediate possibilities.

Conflation of Omniscience and Communication:

The content suggests that any ability for deceased Christians to hear prayers would require them to be omniscient:

“Finite creatures cannot possess what amounts to an infinite knowledge of an infinite number of facts.”

This statement conflates the concept of hearing specific prayers with possessing complete knowledge. It is logically possible for a being to have limited extended perception without being fully omniscient.

False Equivalence between Prayer and Necromancy:

The content equates asking deceased Christians to pray with necromancy:

“It’s called necromancy in the Old Testament. It’s completely forbidden.”

This comparison creates a false equivalence. Necromancy involves invoking the spirits of the dead for knowledge or power, while asking for intercessory prayer is requesting the deceased to join in prayer to God.

Cognitive Biases and Fallacies

Several cognitive biases and logical fallacies are evident in the content:

Confirmation Bias:

The content selectively interprets religious teachings to support the claim that deceased Christians cannot hear prayers, ignoring potential theological perspectives that might allow for limited intercessory abilities.

Straw Man Fallacy:

The content oversimplifies the opposing view by presenting it as inherently advocating for necromancy:

“How is that different than what Saul did with the witch of Endor?”

This oversimplification misrepresents the nuanced theological arguments that differentiate intercessory prayer from necromancy.

Appeal to Authority:

The content relies on authoritative statements without providing detailed reasoning or evidence:

“There’s no biblical justification where the other one I think there is, and sharing it, God’s goodness.”

Citing authority figures without presenting their arguments in detail does not adequately support the claims being made.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

“It’s an impossibility.”

“This is calling on the dead.”

“Jesus and the Father get pre-empted by some dead saint.”

These claims are presented without detailed reasoning or evidence, relying instead on rhetorical assertions.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content should provide evidence and reasoning to substantiate its claims. In logical argumentation, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Therefore, the content should offer more than assertions; it should present evidence from historical, theological, and philosophical analysis to support its conclusions.

Testing Alleged Promises of God

To evaluate any alleged promises of God mentioned in the PDF, one could employ the following methods:

Empirical Observation:

Observing and recording instances where specific promises or predictions are claimed to be fulfilled. Analyzing these occurrences for consistency, specificity, and statistical significance can provide insights.

Historical Analysis:

Investigating historical records to verify the accuracy of events described in religious texts. Cross-referencing these records with independent sources can help establish the reliability of the promises.

Philosophical Inquiry:

Engaging in philosophical analysis to explore the logical coherence of the promises. This includes examining the underlying assumptions and implications of the promises in the broader context of religious and ethical thought.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. This principle, often referred to as epistemic proportionality, ensures that beliefs are held with an appropriate level of certainty based on the strength of the evidence:

Evidence-Based Belief:

Evaluating the strength and reliability of the evidence before forming a belief. Strong, consistent evidence should lead to a higher degree of belief, while weak or contradictory evidence should result in lower confidence.

Critical Examination:

Continuously re-evaluating beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments. This process involves remaining open to revising beliefs when presented with compelling evidence that challenges existing views.

Avoiding Overconfidence:

Recognizing the limitations of one’s knowledge and avoiding overconfidence in beliefs that are not strongly supported by evidence. This humility in belief formation is essential for logical coherence and intellectual honesty.

---

In conclusion, while the content aims to provide a coherent argument against the idea that deceased Christians can hear prayers, it exhibits several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. A more balanced approach would involve engaging with opposing interpretations, providing evidence to support claims, and aligning beliefs with the available evidence. For further discussion and a deeper dive into these arguments, feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section.