The Metaphysical Possibility of Effective Petitionary Prayer

Document Type : Original Research

Author

Ph. D. Graduate in Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Some philosophers do not accept the opinion that God answers petitionary prayer and therefore makes it effective, because effective prayer is not compatible with some of God's attributes such as Immutability, Perfect Goodness, Omnipotence, Omniscience, moral perfection, etc. This paper focuses on examining the metaphysical claim of the possibility of effective petitionary prayer. First, two arguments against the efficacy of petitionary prayer are presented and then criticized. These two arguments respectively presuppose that “God is Perfect Goodness,” and “God always wants to do what is good and is always able for that.” Criticizing the first argument, Michael Murray believes that there are outweighing goods that God can secure by making provision of certain other (lesser) goods depend on petitionary prayer, outweighing goods which in fact outweigh the good of providing the thing asked for unconditionally. Daniel and Frances Howard-Snyder defeat the second argument by asserting that (1) asking God to do something can change the moral status of His doing it, and (2) God’s bringing about a state of affairs in response to a petitionary prayer is sometimes better than the alternatives. Second, the paper deals with the third argument against the efficacy of petitionary prayer which is based on the proposition “God acts in accordance with expediency.” To respond to this objection, using the tripartite division of the relation between petitionary prayer and expediency proposed by Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi, it is shown that there is a third alternative in which the actualization of an expediency can be owing to a petitionary prayer. At the last part of the paper these points are elucidated: effective and actual petitionary prayer, as a casual factor, is beyond a mere language communication; petitionary prayer, according to its kind and level, provides a range of weak to strong reasons for God; and finally, petitionary prayer, besides providing a reason for God’s act, also affects the value and expediency of what is prayed for.

Keywords

قرآن کریم.
طباطبائی، محمدحسین. 1374. تفسیر المیزان. ترجمه سید محمدباقر موسوی همدانی. قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی.
کلینی، ابی جعفر محمد بن یعقوب بن اسحق. 1364. اصول کافی، ج. 2، 4. ترجمه و شرح سید هاشم رسولی. تهران: انتشارات علمیه اسلامیه.
مجلسی، محمدباقر. 1383. عین الحیات. تحقیق کاظم عابدینی مطلق. قم: کامکار.
Basinger, David R. 2003. “God does not necessarily respond to prayer.” Pp. 255-264, in Contemporary debates in philosophy of religion, Edited by Michael L. Peterson, and Raymond J. VanArragon. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Brümmer, Vincent. 1984. What are we doing when we pray?. London: SCM Press.
Davison, Scott. 2009. “Petitionary prayer.” Pp. 286-305, in The Oxford handbook of philosophical theology, edited by Thomas P. Flint, and Michael C. Rea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davison, Scott A. 2021. “Petitionary prayer.” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta.
Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 2010. “The puzzle of petitionary prayer.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2(2): 43-68.
Morris, Thomas V. 1992. Making sense of it all: Pascal and the meaning of life. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Murray, Michael 2003a. “God responds to prayer.” Pp. 242-254, in Contemporary debates in philosophy of religion, Edited by Michael L. Peterson, and Raymond J. VanArragon. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Murray, Michael 2003b. “Reply to Basinger.” Pp. 264-265, in Contemporary debates in philosophy of religion, Edited by Michael L. Peterson, and Raymond J. VanArragon. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Parker, Ryan M., and Bradley Rettler. 2017. “A possible worlds solutions to the puzzle of petitionary prayer.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9(1): 179-189.
Plantinga, Alvin. 2011. Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. Oxford University Press.
Stump, Eleonore. 1979. “Petitionary prayer.” American Philosophical Quarterly 16(2): 81–91.