Girl dies after prayer ineffective - you don’t say? March 27, 2008
Posted by Darren in Atheism, Prayer.trackback
I haven’t posted for a while, having been quite interested in the US Presidential process of late and not really having much to say, but this story made me cringe.
Apparently an eleven year old girl has died in Wisconsin, USA, after her parents neglected to call the doctor in favour of praying. The article on FOXnews.com says:
“Her mother, Leilani Neumann, told The Associated Press that she never expected her daughter, whom she called Kara, to die. The family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God, but they are not crazy, religious people, she said.”
I’ll have to disagree. This is the definition of crazy, religious people. How stupid do you have to be to expect a prayer to an imaginary being that has declined to present any evidence of its existence (that would be because it’s imaginary!) to be more effective than calling a doctor? The article continues:
“The girl’s father, Dale Neumann, a former police officer, said he has friends who are doctors. He started CPR “as soon as the breath of life left” his daughter’s body, he said.Other family members called 911 to seek emergency help, Leilani Neumann said.
“We are remaining strong for our children,” she said. “Only our faith in God is giving us strength at this time.”"
So, the father finally figured out that the prayer wasn’t working and that he ought to intervene when she died but it still took other family members to call the emergency services! He then says that the same faith in his god that just allowed his daughter to die is giving him strength?? No, it’s keeping him ignorant and criminally negligent! I fear for the other children.
The prayer was not ineffective: God’s will was done! While we may not know why He allowed the little girl to die, His ways are perfect, and His plan is perfect, and He has a valid reason for doing what He does. Our prayers are not always answered in the affirmative, if they were, that’s when they would be ineffective. I’m sorry for you that you do not put your trust in God!
Presumably the parents prayed for the girl to be saved, therefore the prayer was ineffective from the parents’ perpective and completely unnecessary from God’s perspective.
This statement of yours doesn’t make sense: “Our prayers are not always answered in the affirmative, if they were, that’s when they would be ineffective.” - it seems like you’re twisting the meaning of the word “ineffective” to suit your bias.
We do know why the girl was allowed to die: the parents’ neglect.
Finally, don’t feel sorry for me. I could just as easily feel pity for you that you do put your faith in imaginary beings, but I’m sure you don’t need my pity.
You commented, “How stupid do you have to be to expect a prayer to a imaginary being that has declined to present any evidence of its existence (that would be because it’s imaginary!) to be more effective than calling a doctor?”
On what grounds does your evidence stand? In other words, your assertion that “a [sic] imaginary being” does not exist because its imaginary is circular argumentation. You have only confirmed your presupposition.
I will not say much more than this: If you are genuinely seeking truth, (the pursuit of the Philosopher is to seek truth for truths sake, not confirm presuppositions) then you need to wrestle with this question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” Why is there a you? a me? a World? Of course, you could respond to this question in an unintelligent manner, or you could give it serious thought and maybe your findings will challenge your presuppositions. If so, will you be honest and allow truth to change you?
Most answers to these “why” questions are unintelligent, though maybe educated. There is absolutely no way to prove any of these answers, and asking these questions will not lead anyone to the “Truth”.
Which presuppositions of your own have you challenged in this manner?
Evidence for what? Non-existence? The burden of proof is on the claimant, so I don’t need to (indeed, cannot) prove that something does not exist. You need to prove that it does. Thus far, any evidence offered has been found wanting. Faith is not evidence.
I’m not afraid to say that I do not know why there is something rather than nothing. I have indeed given it serious thought and have arrived at the conclusion that a lack of knowledge is no reason to put faith in an almighty Creator. I am happy to know that our greatest minds are still searching for those answers. I do not feel the need to settle on an arbitrary fiction and think no more of the matter.
I will allow truth to change me, of course. However, I do not consider Bronze Age stories to be true.
As interesting as all this philosophical stuff is, it is avoiding the issue. Expecting a prayer to work better than a doctor can only be described as misguided optimism at best, idiotic at worst.
James, thank you for pointing out my typo. I’ve corrected it, but left your sic in place.
Adam,
You say, “There is absolutely no way to prove any of these answers.” Let me first just say your proposition is self negating. In other words, you “absolutely” deny answers to the why questions through a skeptical argument, but you fail to realize you just answered the questions with an absolute position. Thus, your argument fails because it is an reductio ad-absurdum against its own assumption. Now, the question remains, Why is there something, rather than nothing?
I allow my presuppositions to be challenged every day, because it is not my desire to live a life apart from truth. Furthermore, as a “knower” (i.e. Moral Agency) I want to conduct myself in this world with respect to what is true rather than falsehood.
Thanks for your question.
Ha I just finished posting on another blog that reported this, too and I said
“I can just hear the theist responses..
‘It was god’s will…’ ‘It’s not up to the parents’ etc.”
lol then I come here and that’s what the theists are saying…
Darren,
First, let me say thanks for your response to my question. There are a few observations I would like to state and a few erroneous views in your statement.
You say, “Evidence for what? Non-existence? The burden of proof is on the claimant, so I don’t need to (indeed, cannot) prove that something does not exist. You need to prove that it does.” Your desire to shift the burden is erroneous and it does not correctly understand the question I issued. The question “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” is a metaphysical question with its effect know by you and me, and all others in this world. To say that I need to prove something exists is a burden that I need not address, although I am in this instance because it seems you misunderstand epistemological processes. In other words, your typing on a keyboard confirms my question, namely, something exists. The question, therefore, is why? Moreover, to say you cannot know why is to disregard the ability to know. Need I remind you that I have not brought faith into this argument, you have.
Your statement, “I will allow truth to change me, of course. However, I do not consider Bronze Age stories to be true” misunderstands truth. Unless of course you are a relativist, which then the question becomes why should I consider anything you have to say is true? If something is true is to say that it is congruent with reality - reality being all possible worlds. We have not discussed evolution, but I am fairly confident that you subscribe to such beliefs. Why do you adhere to this “bronze age story?” Your relative skepticism in this manner is wanting with respect to metaphysical realities.
Lastly, your claim that this “philosophical stuff” avoids the issue again misunderstands why I asked the question I did. I am addressing your assumption, not the cause of your assumption. Thus, I am addressing the issue, not just the way you had hoped or had not considered.
I don’t follow how what I said was self-negating. I didn’t provide a skeptical argument, or an argument of any kind- just an assertion. How is an assumption a negation of itself? This is likely my own ignorance with the art of argument, since I have not studied any subjects that would provide me with those skills.
In any event, I’m trying to imagine an answer to the question “why is there something, rather than nothing?” that doesn’t just lead to another question. I feel like you are looking for an answer that does not lead to other questions. Which is why I asserted that you can’t come up with an answer to these questions.
James, you asked me to provide evidence following your quote of my paragraph about imaginary beings, so I naturally assume you are asking for evidence that it is imaginary. That is why I say that the burden is not on me to prove that it is imaginary.
Your next question about why we are here does indeed miss the point I am trying to make, namely that blind faith over medical expertise is folly.
You keep using words such as “assumption” and “presupposition”. Do you not think it is reasonable to assume something does not exist when there is no credible evidence to suggest that it does?
Finally, it’s laughable that you try and equate the Theory of Evolution (capitalised so that you understand I am using the word “theory” in it’s scientific sense - i.e. proven beyond reasonable doubt with the evidence at hand) to a bronze age story (the Bible is a collection of Bronze Age stories). Since you asked, I subscribe to “such beliefs” because the evidence presented in favour of evolution is strong, credible and consistent.
Darren,
Again, you lapse into circular reasoning with your so called proof of imaginary being. From an epistemological position, I am not persuaded by your thesis because you have not addressed my question. Furthermore, again you ask me to agree with your assumption that empirical evidence is required for existence - to which I ask, do numbers exist? (Oh, by the way, if you assert that numbers do not exist, I would like to see your next paycheck state 00.00) You assume a criteria for existence as being a posteriori - which is fallacious. Once again, you do not understand why this addresses your thesis because you have not made the connections between your belief that “god” does not exist and prayer. This logical hopscotch is inconsistent.
Your “faith” in the validity of evolution seems to surface some hypocrisy, don’t you think?
Adam,
Thanks for your sincerity. A great deal of propositions can be self-negating. For example, the skeptic can state “It is impossible to know anything.” This statement is global skepticism, that is, to know anything is not possible. This statement is self negating insofar as this proposition argues against itself - it assumes a knowledge of grammar, otherwise, the proposition could not be uttered.
James, you don’t seem to understand that nobody can prove a negative. You must have proof positive. I state that gods are imaginary because there I have seen no proof of their existence. I’m not trying to prove that gods are imaginary - you must prove that they do exist. If you can prove they exist, I will adjust my position accordingly.
Numbers exist only as a concept - are you saying that gods are only concepts too? If so, then perhaps we’re making progress.
Do numbers actually exist? Not really. I am not paid in numbers. My paycheck (which exists) tells me I am paid a certain amount of currency (which exists), the total amount of which is represented by the concept of numbers.
I do not have “faith” in evolution in the sense that you might have faith in a god. I find the the theory of evolution sensible and supported by credible evidence. That is not faith in the accepted use of the word, and I see no hypocrisy. Perhaps you could explain where is the hypocrisy in clear, unequivocal terms for me.
Let me ask you a simple question: do you think that praying instead of calling a doctor is a sensible approach?
Darren,
Your existentialist worldview is evident through your epistemic needs to have empirical evidence for belief. I challenge this epistemic position by saying that there is evidence for metaphysical realities - hence numbers. No, numbers are not concepts, and I think if I could press the envelope and have your employer write your paycheck to state 0.00 you would ardently disagree with your own thesis that numbers to do not exist. (I wish your thesis were true because I could conceive that I had 50,000.00 dollars to pay off school loans and it be true.) Moreover, the fact that you are reading these words - a sign for a metaphysical reality - and replying to my thoughts proves that your local skepticism is indeed unwarranted.
Again, you are the one trying to prove a negative because obviously you are in existence; hence the question why you rather than not you? Are you willing to say that you do not exist; if so, then who shall I say is responding to my comments?
Adam actually is on the right track with his statement about trying to answer the question, “Why something rather than nothing?” He states that it leads to more questions, and, indeed, it does. Specifically, it leads to a larger question, a question that challenges your understanding of evolution: If there is something, how did this something get here? And if this something has information, then from where did the information come?
Again, it is evident that your worldview, although it being incorrect, is causing you to come to conclusions that your worlview expects. This is true for the naturalist worldview in its entirety. This is the erroneous idea that science is void of philosophy.
No, god is more than a concept. If you want evidence, there is your first strand.
I am not obliged to answer your question because your question purports an antithesis that does not exist, in lay terms, it is not a disjunctive position.
I am addressing the foundation on which your conclusions arise. You keep reissuing questions about the symptoms of your epistemology. In other words, your questions are tantamount to wiping off oil from a leaking gasket. You find assurance your beliefs are correct - wiping the oil away. I am stating that you need to address the gasket - your worldview.
James, I already answered your point about numbers, and also admitted I do not know why there is something rather than nothing. I am comforatable in the knowledge that it is a work in progress and that we do not have all the answers at this point in our history. I am also confident that my worldview is considerably closer to reality than the theist position. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but so far nobody has presented anything remotely convincing. Your attempt to discredit me merely hides that your position is not credible.
Perhaps you do not understand that evolution has nothing to do with how or why the universe was created? And why do you need to fill in the obvious gaps in your knowledge with a god that you probably only believe in as an accident of geography? What makes you so certain that I my worldview is incorrect and yours is not? Are there any conditions that would make you change your mind about the existence of gods?
Then again, I am probably wasting my time asking questions as you say you are not obliged to answer. If that’s the case, then this discussion is at an end.
I think you may need a new rag, it seems more oil is leaking than before. I wonder, just how much have you studied epistemology? Or are you going on faith of what others have told you?
Indeed, it is a good time to end the conversation, especially since you do not even understand or have addressed your own assumptions in your worldview - clearly a sign that you are not as sincere as you say.
I’d like to address the question that James evaded, namely,
“Do you think that praying instead of calling a doctor is a sensible approach?”
The kindest words I can think of for these parents are ‘grossly’ and ‘deluded’. Yet in a sense I suppose they have only taken their faith to it’s logical conclusion: Assuming you believe there is a God and it’s all powerful, why not leave everything in it’s hands?
I’d be interested to hear from any religious people on how they justify visits to doctors rather than placing their faith in a God. (Not that I would criticise them for it). As to the most damning words I can think of for these parents? They have immensely strong faith.
One thing seems clear to me . And that is the common
arrogance and intolerance of most atheists who post
on difference websites. You can read it in the words
they right and the way they demean anyone who holds
a different world view from them . That alone
makes me a person who would never believe in
Atheism.
The truth is, that they do not have all the answers but
all too few are humble enough and considerate of others
to admit that .
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Kaffiyeh.