There seems to be a spat of columns in the newspaper concerning the efficacy of prayer, both from Moms and from Kentucky Doctors. I believe quite the opposite, that prayers are nothing more than fervent wishes directed to a mythological force to grant a special plea, even if it contradicts nature. If I'm not mistaken, there was in your paper about 6 months ago an article about a church in the Palm Springs area praying for rain and another in Europe at the same time for the cessation of rain. What's a god to do? Whose prayers did he respond to.

It appears that after an undisclosed and undetermined amount of time, the effect of the Wish (prayer) is deemed to have occurred, (no specifics mentioned), then it is considered an answer from God. When did the rains come? Two days, two months, two years later? - No mention, but I bet next year they'll pray again to have nature deviate from its laws and provide their community with just the right amount of precipitation- not too much mind you, just right. What happens if it doesn't rain at all? Was the prayer not fervent enough or did God want the community to suffer? Or did God just work in "mysterious" ways and no rain is for their own good? In neither scenario is there a way one can say prayers are effective. The medical studies the paper alludes to in the article have been discredited due to the obvious bias of the testers.

Does it mean that the prayers of 50 million Christians in the USA cannot overcome the prayers of 50 terrorists and that their God is stronger, or as Mr. Falwell says, we brought it on ourselves by allowing feminists and gays etc. to run rampant in this country. It really disturbs me when I hear a person thanking God that a loved one was saved from disaster while 5000 or more of his neighbors were killed. What kind of God would do that?

I feel that these so-called prayers are just an internal wish conversation with ourselves and that there can be no way any can be said to have been answered or not. Only belief, not evidence, makes it so.

Dick, you remeber that in the rather unprofitable collection of interchanges at the last HSSB meeting, the winning preference was "intellectual stimulation. " I am ready to suggest that to do its part, the Bulletin might start to devote short pieces, original statements by members, or substantial quotes (not the usual one liners) from others, to which people would be invited to respond at comparable length. I don't think people get intellectual stimulation from rehearsing what they already know or believe, but when their knowledge is criticized or their beliefs challenged. So herewith a passage that has a somewhat surprising, albeit tongue in cheek, defense of atheism:

It has been long a subject of dispute, which is worse in it's effects on society, such a religion or speculative atheism. For my own part, I could almost give the preference to the latter. ..Atheism is so repugnant to every principle of common sense, that it is not possible it should ever gain much ground, or become very prevalent. On the contrary, there is a particular proneness in the human mind to superstition, and nothing is more likely to become prevalent. .. Atheism leaves us to the full influence of most of our natural feelings and social principles; and these are so strong in their operation, that, in general, they are a sufficient guard to the order of society. But superstition counteracts these principles, by holding forth men to one another as objects of divine hatred; and by putting them on harrassing, silenceing, imprisoning and burning one another, in order to do God service. ..Atheism is a sanctuary for vice, by taking away the motives to virtue arising from the will of God, and the fear of future judgment. But superstition is more a sanctuary for vice, by teaching men ways of pleasing God, without moral virtue; and by leading them even to compound for wickedness, by ritual services, by bodily penances and mortifications; by adoring shrines, going pilgrimages, saying many prayers, receiving absolution from the priests, exterminating heretics, &c. ...Atheism destroys the sacredness and obligation of an oath. But is there not also a religion (so called) which does this, by teaching, that there is power which can dispense with the obligation of oaths; that pious frauds are right, and that faith is not to be kept with heretics.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions59.html

The author is St. George Tucker, a famous jurist, in his 5-volume "Blackstone's Commentaries," 1803. The full statement at this web site is quite worth repeated reading. I would be curious to see if any others of the "intellectual stimulation" advocates would be interested in a semi-organized discussion of this at a meeting, or with few of us individually, or whatever. The only way to find out is to put it to the members.

Happy New Year to all. We finished up 2003 with a delightful Winter Solstice party, well attended by 52 members and guests. Marian Shapiro provided a wonderful program, ably aided by Dick Cousineau, Roger Schlueter, Dudley Duncan and James Kimberly. Thank you to all for your efforts and enthusiastic participation! If any of you return to Sizzler, please thank manager Mike Howells for his excellent dinner event. He always goes all out for us.

Our upcoming plans include our buffet dinner out at the Biltmore - contact John Coppejans if you would like to participate. Don't forget the last Sunday of the month brunch at Hola Amigos at 10AM. No need to reserve - just come.

Many of you have expressed interested in attending the Spring Conference of American Atheists in San Diego. You can get information from the American Atheist website (Atheists.org). I am investigating train reservations and fares. Please indicate to me if you are interested in going down as a group.

As always, your suggestions, input, help and comments are welcomed by your Social Committee.