The Atlantic continues its downhill slide (I swear, is every good journalistic outlet going to become clickbait?) with a new piece by Katelyn Beaty,”The case for ‘thoughts and prayers’—even if you don’t believe in God.” Of course, Beaty, a believer, slants most of it toward fellow goddies, not atheists. Her author profile describes her as “an editor at large with Christianity Today magazine, and the author of A Woman’s Place.” They omit the entire title of her 2016 book: A Woman’s Place: A Christian Vision for Your Calling in the Office, the Home, and the World).

So what’s her case for prayer? First, the one for nonbelievers. Beaty describes, tediously, the studies showing that meditation improves calmness and focus, and reduces fear. That’s been known for a long time. But you don’t have to pray to a god to get those benefits; Zen, or any form of focused meditation, will suffice. So the case for atheist “prayers” collapses immediately. Nevertheless, she continues by arguing that the emotional calmness induced by prayer can lead to political action:

But prayer is not inaction. I would argue that it is perhaps the most powerful form of action you can engage in during a crisis—and that’s true whether you believe in God or not. There are good reasons why prayer remains a daily activity for more than half of all Americans (55 percent), including about one in five religiously unaffiliated people or “nones.” Even for those of us who aren’t sure that God exists and that our prayer can change God, prayer can certainly change us. . . . But are we really to think that prayer and meditation will help stop gun violence in the United States, even if many Americans aren’t sure there is a God who answers prayer? Actually, yes—especially in the initial throes of a tragedy. Since prayer aids in clear, calm, and empathetic thinking, if we are going to respond well to complicated issues such as gun control, prayer may be more helpful in leading us toward better policy solutions than would an urgent, fretful, ill-considered response. The same applies to our elected officials: If we want them to use their power to change gun laws (or tackle any other incredibly complex issue of the day), then we should want them to be engaging with “thoughts and prayers”—although in order to have a positive effect, this does need to be a sincere and regular activity, not just an ad-hoc performance on Twitter. Again, the positive effect on mental and emotional health is there even if they don’t believe that human prayer can change God.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Notice again that she conflates prayer and meditation, even though the title of her piece mentions not meditation, but “thoughts”—and the mantra “thoughts and prayers” is conventionally used to mean “good wishes and prayers”, not “meditation and prayers”, so she’s again downgrading the atheist bit. Note as well that most people think that “thoughts and prayers” help in themselves—they’re not seen as vehicles to center your mind so you can get on with gun control. Were that true, and given who’s doing most of the praying in America (see below), we’d already have a ban on assault weapons and private ownership of handguns.

More important, though, is her ridiculous claim that prayer and meditation will stop gun violence in the U.S, because “prayer aids in clear, calm, and empathetic thinking”. Well, let’s test that. Which party is the party that most opposes gun regulation? You’d think it would be the party that prays the most, right? That’s not true, of course. Here are data from a Pew “religious landscape” study in 2014. It shows what we already know: Republicans are far more religious than Democrats:

And here’s the frequency of prayer, showing pretty much the same thing. Only 16% of Republicans pray “seldom or never”, but that jumps to 28% for Democrats. 62% of Republicans, but only 50% of Democrats, say they pray daily.

Conclusion: given that Republicans are the main advocates of gun lunacy, as well as the party that deals the worst with “complicated issues” Beaty’s claims are falsified.

That should be the end of it, and the Atlantic’s editors should have consigned Beaty’s piece to the circular file. But Beaty, being a Christian, can’t resist banging on about her theistic God:

Most Americans—nearly three in four—believe that prayer is a direct line to a God who cares about the world and is intimately involved in the lives of all people. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this God is not the removed watchmaker, who set the natural laws in place and let things run their course, passively looking on as innocents are killed in mass shootings. This God “bends down to listen” and “inclines His ears to hear” the utterances of every person who prays, to quote the psalmist of the Bible. This God is radically interventionist, and can move nations’ leaders to pursue righteousness and justice on behalf of said innocents. This is no less true in the wake of a tragedy like that in Las Vegas. If you really believe that there is a God who responds to prayer, is intimately involved in human affairs, and could heal this nation’s deep pathologies of violence and revenge, then prayer should be the first thing you do after a mass shooting. Not the only thing, but the first thing.

Beaty doesn’t seem to realize that she’s gotten herself all balled up in theodicy here. If—and given her book, I’m sure she believes this—God really does listen to prayers, and even answers them, and is interventionist in many ways, then you have to ask yourself this: if God is so powerful, why didn’t he stop Stephen Paddock from killing 58 people and injuring nearly 500? Is this some sick divine tactic to make people beg God for gun control? Seriously, any god who is “intimately involved in human affairs”, and had an ounce of compassion, wouldn’t have left hundreds of people dead in our many incidents of mass slaughter, and thousands more bereft at the loss of their friends, family, or loves ones. Beaty’s god is not a kind god, but an evil one: he refuses to stop mass slaughters when he could have. Why, Ms. Beaty? Further, when tested scientifically, prayer doesn’t work (see also here). So if God exists, he’s both nasty and deaf. Beaty has failed miserably in her appeal to both atheists and believers.

h/t: Diane G

p.s. I see that Andrew Seidel, a lawyer for the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), has written his own rebuttal to Beaty’s ridiculous article. I haven’t yet read it because I wanted to convey my own thoughts here, but now I will; and you can see Seidel’s response at Freethought Now!, the FFRF’s blog.