Talk:Prayer

Orison

I added the word Orison to the lead sentence per the peer review, which made sense to me since the two words are synonymous and since Orison (spirituality) redirects here. However, on second thought, while the term orison should definitely remain in the article, I'm not sure the lead sentence is the right place for it. I believe a better place would be in the section on etymology. What do you think? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No feedback, so I acted unilaterally. Still open to better ideas, though. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Forms of prayer section

I added some citation tags to the Forms of prayer section. Here's my rationale...I -uh- pray that no one is offended!  :-)

The Forms of prayer section makes a number of sweeping claims about various faith traditions that--while probably true--need to be backed up:

"Native Americans dance." All Native Americans? Which nations? Can this be verified?

"Some Sufis whirl." Probably true, but how do we know this--how can we find out more?

"Hindus chant." Again, is there a source for this statement? To the best of my knowledge, nearly all faith traditions chant--why are Hindus being singled out here?

"Orthodox Jews sway their bodies back and forth." Source? Is this true for all Orthodox Jews?

"Quakers keep silent." Certainly not all Quakers keep silent in prayer, particularly those in Programmed Worship churches; nor are Quakers the only faith tradition to practice silent prayer.

Also, the second paragraph looks like original research. Unless we can provide a reference for this, it should probably be removed. Webbbbbbber (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The lack of citations on these assertions has been fixed, and, in some cases, the assertions themselves have been tweaked to address the above concerns. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pope's intentions

There is a special prayer for the Pope's intentions within Roman Catholicism, something that should probably be looked at, and which might perhaps be deserving of a stub. ADM (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Neither Vishnavas (70% of Hindus) nor Shaivas (25% of Hindus) see the impersonal Brahman as the ultimate reality of God. Rather they see Brahman as an impersonal component of whoever they see as the ultimate God (Shiva, Krishna, Rama, Narayan, etc.). -- Q Chris (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, can you tell me what is true about prayer in Hinduism? I am looking for sources that can be used. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This definition is not without bias

This definition: "Prayer is "the act of communicating with a deity or spirit in worship." is biased. It appears to be from a protestant source. This is not the definition in a Catholic sense. Prayer to a catholic is not always worship....only when directed to God is it worship. Catholics live out a fuller meaning of the word prayer in the sense of asking and ask those living among us to help by praying to God for us as well as those who are with God (but not God ) to pray to God to help us. The catholic sense of worship is broader than just prayer and singing...in the catholic belief we sacrifice in worship....this is not part of protestant theology. Thus a protestant definition of prayer is truncated and not sufficient to what would be taken as a source of encyclopedic knowledge.Steelwirefingers (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph that includes those words is pretty close to the first word sense in Webster's 3rd: "1a: a solemn and humble approach to Divinity in word or thought usu. involving beseeching, petition, confession, praise or thanksgiving". Wiki articles do allow more than one word sense. You might want to consider adding a few words later in the article, or in Prayer in Christianity. In this case a reference to an extremely reliable source would be best. (E.g., the most recent version of The Catholic Encyclopedia.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The definition is a good one. All of our actions are done before God, so "communication" narrows it down to specifically directed actions, and "worship" excludes unprayerful communication (like cursing God, and so on). If a Roman Catholic asks his friend Fred to pray for him, you would hardly say that he is praying to Fred; prayers are always directed to God (though sometimes via another person, dead or alive). The broad idea of worship is not just protestant or Roman Catholic (it is, as you say "catholic"): worship encompasses all of our lives lived for God's glory, that is, the reflection and display of his characteristics. The Catholic encyclopaedia gives:

"In a more general sense it is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire a knowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God."

This sounds rather like what is there already, as "the application of the mind to Divine things" is similar in intent to our idea of communication (asking for "gifts and graces", and receiving knowledge), with the restriction to right use for union serving the same purpose as the article's restriction to worship.— Kan8eDie (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem with defining it is that you COULD say he is praying to Fred. "Pray" basically just means "to ask or plead." The specific use of the word as something only directed to God developed FROM that (somewhat archaic, now) meaning. So the two get muddled and confused. When a Catholics says he's "praying to Mary" he means he's asking her something. The Protestant hears the word as synonymous with "worship." Carlo (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the way that other asking words like beg, implore, beseech, and so on have shifted meaning. We have to be clear what we are defining though. In a dictionary, you are looking at the meaning of words; in the lead of an encyclopaedia, you are looking at the meaning of subjects. The article is about the idea of prayer, not the word prayer, so the first sentence is describing what Prayer (as the article's title) means. Perhaps it should be a bit more clear that the object of the 'prayer' (modern sense) is God, even if someone else is involved, that is, any thanks or petitions even presented through Saints have efficacy only because their ultimate source and object is Jesus. The prayer (article sense) is to God, even though a prayer (old, word sense) is made to the intermediate as well. I am not strongly attached to the current definition though, as, in trying to encompass all sorts of wacky stuff that Christians would not think of as true prayer, it by necessity misses out some of this. Perhaps a debate over the fine language from a protestant and Catholic viewpoint would be more appropriate on the Prayer in Christianity page? That has a crazy lead; copying this parent article's lead to there would make it more specific for a start!— Kan8eDie (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I just edited this article as can be seen by the history because it contained (and still contains) blatant bias in the opening statement. User "KillerChihuahua" accepted my change but made a minor change to the wording of my edit (though I think it was better as it was) and restored the reference, despite the fact my definition no longer quoted from that reference. User "Beirne" then reverted the article to its original state, claiming that "assuming some sort of god is reasonable in an article on prayer". It is absolutely not reasonable. The Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity, to which this article - along with all others - is subject. Grorland (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• In addition, please see the Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality. Implying in the text that people who pray are indeed successfully communicating with a supernatural entity violates this. Furthermore, believers might concede that even if their god exists (which is of course not verifiable), he might not always be listening when people pray. On these grounds, if not the others, this modification of the opening text should be allowed to pass without obstruction. Grorland (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually disagree with your points on the efficacy of prayer, but to just leave it at prayer being an "attempt" to communicate implies that it is futile, which is it's own type of bias. While one can say that it is technically neutral because the attempt might succeed, adding the word "attempt" changes to tone to a negative one. How about "The goal of prayer is communication with a god or spirit for the purpose of worship or petition."? This wording logically included the possibility that prayer may not succeed without casting it in a negative light. --Beirne (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One more comment. Try searching for "god" in the article. You will find the word used in factual form throughout. This would seem to imply that the various gods exist, since the text doesn't include qualifications like "supposed god". It is understood, though, that the discussion is in the context of the various religions so such qualifications aren't needed. A similar context makes the word "attempted" unnecessary in the opening sentence. --Beirne (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The references to god are, as far as I can see, acceptable in an encylopedia because they simply refer to a concept people claim to have (if a vague one) which may or may not correspond to reality. (Indeed if you look up "God" it leads to "Deity" which is defined as merely "posulated".) The references do not seem to imply that such gods really exist, as the opening sentence of this article did. I have not examined the text in detail yet though - I was stopped short by the strong and unacceptable assumption present in the opening sentence.

Regarding your proposed alteration, I do not feel the word "attempt" implies futility - though there is plenty of evidence that prayer is indeed futile. Your suggested text also seems to be less a definition of the act than of its goal. For these reasons I believe it is better left as is.

However, despite my points being valid, I notice this article has yet again been reverted to its original form so that it sits in violation of Wikipedia policy. I guess that's the way things work round here. Well, no-one can say I didn't try. Grorland (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC) — Grorland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just as people are smart enough to know that "god" is a concept that people claim to have, they are also smart enough to know that prayer is a process or thing that people do. The original sentence already had enough qualifications with "a god or a spirit" that it is more of a conceptual statement than a doctrinal one.

The word "attempt" gives the sentence a negative tone in the same way as "claimed" or "supposed". Say I took the opening sentence from the article on vaccination: "Vaccination is the administration of antigenic material (the vaccine) to produce immunity to a disease." and changed it to "Vaccination is the administration of antigenic material (the vaccine) to attempt to produce immunity to a disease." The sentence is still correct, but it now has a bit of a negative tone. Now, one may say that there is a difference, because vaccinations work and prayer doesn't, but that is a separate discussion.

KillerChihuahua asked in his change if anyone has an OED. I don't, but I looked it up in the dictionary I have. I think the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1979) has a good definition: "an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought". It does not say whether the process succeeds or not but it does not have a negative tone. Too bad we can't use this definition in the article, but it might help lead to a solution.

And yes, people should join in the discussion here rather than do reverts of good-faith changes. --Beirne (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, clarity and simplicity are more important than neutrality, especially where any idiot can see through the lack of the latter, which is clearly the case here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. It says "the act of communicating with a god or spirit" and links to the article on God, which article discusses belief and disbelief in a deity. It is impossible and undesirable to qualify every thing that someone thinks isn't real every time that thing is mentioned. Doing so is its own bias. Carlo (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me (and it's neutral by not specifically mentioning any particular religion): "Prayer is the act of communicating with a god or spirit for the purpose of worship or petition." -- Trelawnie (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are likely to be more believers than non-believers contributing to this article so I know I am unlikely to get any changes through, however let me explain a little further my reasoning on this.

First, I regard the opening statement as essentially (logically) an example of the Fallacy of Many Questions. It hinges on the interpretation of the word "communicate", and for me communication assumes the existence of a "target".

To illustrate my point very clearly, take the SETI project. We would not say that the workers on this project are "communicating with alien life forms" - precisely because we do not know with certainty whether such life forms exist. We would rather say that workers on the SETI project are with their transmissions "attempting to communicate with alien life forms". Since we do not know whether god(s) exists either, this example is perfectly analogous with the case of prayer.

I don't think I can put it any more clearly than this, so having explained myself I will leave you all to have the article as you wish, even though I believe it is in breach of the Wikipedia's own guidelines on impartiality and verifiablity, and the addition of the word "attempt" would certainly not in any way make it more difficult to understand (as has been claimed). Grorland (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference being that no one at SETI has ever claimed to have received an answer. Also, the presence of the word "attempt" here would serve no other purpose than being cumbersome. Please read what I wrote on your talk page about gender-neutral disclaimers in French. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Grorland, don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a believer, they may just like precise language.

The loaded question article was pretty interesting, especially the part on the implied form. Adding "attempt" is an implied form, as it implies failure. Now, prayer may well fail, but one should not imply this in the definition. See again my example of putting "attempt" into the definition of vaccination.

I still think a more neutral definition can be devised. I like the example I gave from Webster's, we just need to come up with something that doesn't run afoul of copyright law. How about "Prayer is the act of addressing a god or spirit for the purpose of worship or petition"? --Beirne (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support that: "addressing" bypasses both the positive implication of "communicating" and the negative of "attempting to communicate". I see no bias issues with that; it appears to neatly walk the NPOV tightrope. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Addressing" sounds like a good solution to me. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blanchardb, I did see your mail but disgaree with your argument, and as I have said I think the Wikipedia's standards should be upheld and my suggestion does not lead to any lack of clarity whatsoever. Also we cannot take seriously people's claims to have had replies from god since they have no evidence and the prudence of Occam's razor suggests such individuals are more likely to be delusional.

Beirne, I'm afraid you've made a false inference: I don't assume that everyone who disagrees with me is a believer (you, for example, might not be),but merely that believers will be more likely to edit this article and to take a position opposed to mine.

Regarding your other points, I thought we had already agreed to disagree that "attempt" implies failure (even though this would in fact be acceptable since no prayer has ever be conclusively shown to be successful and the burden of proof is upon the claimant). I didn't mention your example of vaccination because I thought the SETI one more useful and analogous.

Regarding your proposed sentence using "addressing", though, I think this is a good compromise as the word is less loaded. Given the circumstances I'd be happy if the definition were changed to this. Perhaps we've reached a decision? Grorland (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Next time I start to get Wikipedia burnout I'll remember how we came to a good compromise here. --Beirne (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. Just further to this, on the issue of your vaccination example:

I interpret "attempt" as saying nothing about success or failure, it is merely 50/50. It is ideal for cases where we do not know the success rate (and we do not know the success rate of prayer). The reason it seems inappropriate in the case of vaccination is that we do know the success rate with certainty. To be negative, in contrast, we would say "the probably futile attempt" and to be conslusively negative "the futile attempt" or "the entirely futile attempt". I am arguing for none of these.

I'm still not entirely happy with "addressing", by the way, but happy enough to settle for it, for now, by way of compromise. Grorland (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)