Prayer Without God



When I was in middle school, my Spanish teacher was diagnosed with cancer. Her husband was the Bible teacher. Both of her children were students. This was at a small, Christian school in Maryland, a close community of believers.
What was our response when we learned the terrible news of her illness? We prayed, of course. Not the typical prayers which had been a normal part of Bible class and Monday morning chapels, in which students took turns ticking off prayer requests from the general to the specific, but the real deal. A 24-hour prayer blanket was conceived, in which students, faculty, friends and family signed up for a block of time, all throughout the night, all throughout the next day, fervently pleading, imploring, fasting for weeks on end, for as long as it took.


Finally, the news came: The cancer was gone! She was healed! There was much rejoicing and outpouring of thanksgiving, hands were raised, hosannas were shouted. Those secular doctors with their secular science were completely befuddled! Yes, for all their highfalutin’ degrees and prestigious education, they could not account for this seeming miracle before their eyes, but we knew the score! Hallelujah, the God of Abraham had heard our prayers!

A week later the cancer returned with a vengeance and she was dead within 24 hours.

The idea of prayer had always caught in my maw as a Christian. I went through the motions because I felt I had no choice but to acknowledge its veracity, as it was a part of the package deal which came with salvation and eternal life, but there was nonetheless a logical component to it which always seemed lacking. Were we actually attempting tochange God’s mind about an outcome, and if so, how did that fit in with free will and God’s omnipotence and all the rest of it?

Following her death, it was explained that God had indeed heard our prayers, and that this was clearly a part of His orchestrated plan. Perhaps, somehow, her death might even lead others to Christ! Above all, we must continue to pray that God’s will be done.

In the decades following my deconversion and disbelief in God, what began as dissatisfaction with these pat answers to life’s tragedies turned to gilt-edged skepticism, followed by hostility for church-goers and church-elders.

However, now that I am an adult, after having assumed I was done with that holy enterprise, I now find myself sitting in the wooden chairs of a small, old Mennonite Church most Sunday mornings, taking part in the communal hymn-singing, the passing of the peace, the breaking of bread. My family and I bring food to share, ponder the sermons, and remain after service long into the afternoon.

Perhaps this anomaly can be explained with the cyclical shape that a life can take. Perhaps it is that I am married to a woman who is more spiritually-minded than I. Perhaps it is that there are just so many tropes which are familiar to me: the language, the rhythm, the underlying mythology of it.

It would be a mistake, however, to characterize my return to church as merely a return to what is familiar. Indeed, I often find myself outside of my comfort zone, listening to hard-hitting sermons about poverty, racial injustice and immigration rights. This is not the church I grew up in. Far from it. This is a church with a focus on social justice issues, seen primarily through the lens of Christ’s example. But that is not the fullest extent of the comfort zone which I find myself existing outside of.

The truth is, each Sunday that I attend, I must confront the fact that I simply do not believe in a God and probably never will.

The longer I’ve attended, the more at ease I’ve become with this realization about myself. Perhaps it’s being surrounded by people who are themselves comfortable with their beliefs which has made me more comfortable with my own. Or – more likely - it’s because the very real problems of the world as they are presented from the pulpit are larger than any mythology, more immediate than any supposition about the unknown.

There remains, however, the issue of prayer.

“It is now our time of sharing,” says the worship leader every Sunday, once the sermon has concluded. “Please share your joys, your concerns, your reflections on the sermon. When you are finished, say, ‘God of Grace,’ and we will respond with ‘Hear our prayer.’”

The congregation is small, and the wooden chairs arranged so that half the sanctuary faces the other half. One by one, individuals rise and speak of world events and local politics, money and violence, a conversation, a conundrum. The effects of the economy, the wages of war, all very real and immediate in a way I don’t get in the routine of my daily life

I now have a very humanist understanding of what is happening when people gather together to pray. I am no longer concerned with the logical implications of an omnipotent being’s mind being changed. Instead, I think about issues of human community. In real life, how often do we find a platform for expressing personal feelings so openly? How often are we able to express a terror, or a dream, not just with a spouse or a few close friends, but with an entire community?

There is solace in sharing personal burdens and personal joys. And there is responsibility in having the private lives of others opened up before you. This is what prayer has come to mean to me, and it is more meaningful to me than to suppose that an incorporeal entity is going to supernaturally intercede in our affairs.

I wish that I had appreciated this aspect when I had been younger, when my entire school hung on every bit of news concerning my cancer-stricken teacher, generously interpreting the slightest positive prognosis as something miraculous. Instead, I sat in the back of chapel, smug in my self-righteous certainty that I could see through this theistic illusion of prayer.

In many ways, I feel I was onto something. There was an illusory veil which I correctly saw through. My mistake, however, was that I stopped my introspection there, and did not consider that in life, there are veils behind veils, and truths behind illusions.

Presuppositionalist Pete - 1


Atheist Dan Barker Claims that Rape is A-Okay!


With an atheistic worldview, there is no absolute morality! You could just as easily murder someone as select a flavor of ice cream!

I hate this line of thinking, this argument from absolute morality, and I see it all the time. I was intrigued, then, when I saw on one of the many religious Facebook groups I belong to, someone posted this:


To which I responded:


But it made me curious to know what each of those above points were about. I decided to look up the last of them, to see what I could find. I just copied "Atheist Dan Barker says rape is not necessarily immoral in all situations" into Google and viola:

In fact, it even made Conservapedia.com, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia."


A moral obligation? Not only could rape be moral, but it could actually be a moral obligation? I pictured an end-of-the-world scenario in which the last surviving man encounters the last surviving woman, and in five minutes he knows he will die from radiation poisoning and so this is the absolute last chance for the human population to survive, there is no time for romance or even a how-do-you-do? He must spread his seed NOW before... before... his heart goes, he falls to the ground, dead. Before him, the last woman stands shaking, shivering, the human race saved by an act of rape.

But my imagination runs wild. Surely it couldn't be that ridiculous.

Finally, I found the video in question, from which all of these accusations spring forth:



I wasn't too far off. Not only is it an end-of-the-world scenario, but it also involves aliens. What if aliens invaded the planet earth and told us that if Dan Barker didn't rape a 16 year-old girl, then they would slaughter all of humanity. Under that extremely hypothetical example, then yes, Dan Barker argues, rape would be the moral recourse.


I hate that he said this, mostly because it allows fundamentalists everywhere to now utter the words, "Dan Barker claims that child rape could be moral!" and more generally, "Atheists condone child rape!" and finally, "Atheists will rape your children!"

But mostly I hate that he said this because it's not true. The distinction I would make is this: Having to choose between two immoral acts does not make one of them automatically moral. Choosing to rape the girl in order to save humanity does not make child rape moral. At most, you could say it was the less immoral action. Although even that, I don't think is accurate. The most moral action, as I see it, would be to refuse, and in that, I actually agree with Barker's Christian fundamentalist opponent.

I thought Kyle Butt's follow-up questions revealed this. Would you rape a hundred girls? he asked. Would you rape a thousand girls? At what point would you refuse? When is it enough?

Barker seems to be simply saying, for whatever horrible thing you can imagine, such as rape, it is possible to imagine something worse, and a scenario in which you would have to choose between the two. I will grant him this,.but the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

Atheists should not be afraid to assert an objective, ethical foundation.It is okay to say that rape is wrong, absolutely, one hundred per cent of the time. Really. I give you my permission.