The chance of getting rain does not increase by praying for rain. From a purely physical angle praying is a senseless activity. And yet, it would not testify to our inclusive stance, if we did not recognize that there is more to an act like addressing oneself to a principal being, whether it is called "praying" or something else. Moreover, from the same physical angle there is no essential difference between praying and such an act as wishing someone a good time, for example, a good night or a happy New Year. Both praying and wishing involve some sort of request (even when only thanking a god this time). In neither case the chance of fulfilment of what is prayed for, or of what is wished for, (also in the future when now only expressing gratitude) is, physically speaking, increased by the expression of such a request.

Altho praying to a god may be a theocentrist practise based on the supernaturalist belief that prayers will have a positive effect in an immediate sense (but not necessarily at the time of praying), addressing themselves to a principal being can for certain people under certain circumstances have a profound symbolic and psychosocial significance. It can have such a symbolic significance in that it emphasizes the special relationship with the principal being concerned and the ideals it represents. Those who formally express their hope, wish or thanks thus try to symbolically come closer to an eminent being which has, perhaps, ostensibly remained at too great a distance.

The act of addressing oneself to a mightier being than oneself can have a psychological significance in that it may be a way to express, and possibly relieve, one's feelings of helplessness. Furthermore, the act of formally expressing a wish together with other people, while everyone is addressing 'imself to the same principal being may have an important social function which must not be underestimated. (This can precisely be the strategic power of a common proper name such as God for the very dissimilar principal beings believed in by people of different religious persuasions.) Even the most austere, positivist rationalist cannot deny that those who address themselves to the same principal being (or name) unite themselves, that is, unite themselves under the same ideals (or under the same inane concepts) symbolized by, or in, the image of that principal being (or name). Maybe, the act of addressing oneself to a principal being does not really create a relationship with that principal being, but it does create a more intense relationship with all others living under the same denomination. Our veridicalism only requires here that we do not take literally what must be understood symbolically. The symbolic itself may, then, be said to have a psychosocial meaning.

It is not neutral to be prayed to, or otherwise addressed. And it does not make sense to specially ask something from a being that does not have a more than average power, or to specially thank it for something it cannot have done, or cannot have done better than the average other person or object. Therefore the supreme should not be prayed to or otherwise addressed, even if it exists or existed. Anyone purporting to address the supreme being does in fact address an inferior being. Not only should the supreme being not be prayed to or addressed, since it has no creative or nanaic power, it could not even be suggested in a prayer or formal wish that the all-neutral being aid those who have fallen victims to unananicity or unnanaicity. The all-neutral being and its image are not only superior to prayers but also to the possible, nontheocentrist, non-supernaturalist analogs of prayers. In our relationship with the supreme being we ourselves should, similarly, be superior to every cult of requesting and thanking.

Whereas the all-ananic is too high in a normative respect to address oneself to, the all-nanaic is a mighty entity which in principle can help mortal humans and others when they need its assistance. The vigor of the all-nanaic, or of a particular nanan, may thus stimulate the desire in certain individuals to more or less formally address themselves to this Ananormative principal being. Such an act or practise should be considered purely symbolic. And never should anyone address 'imself in a denominational context to a nanan that can or could address 'imself to others too as this is bound to degenerate into honor exism.

Tho it may theoretically be possible to address oneself to oneself, addressing oneself to something creates in the first place a distance between oneself and that other being. This is even more apparent when the other being is something to be religiously honored or loved. The distance between the adherent of the DNI and the two principal beings will not be enlarged because of some requirement that they should be honored; and, so far as the all-ananic is concerned, not because of some requirement that it should be prayed to or loved. However, so far as the all-nanaic is concerned the act or practise of addressing oneself to, or perhaps 'loving', the all-nanaic or a particular nanan, could be responsible for a greater distance between the all-nanaic and the individual adherent. Such an effect would be very regrettable indeed. For unlike the principal beings of theocentrist denominations, the principal beings of the Norm are not there to be honored, loved or prayed to. On the contrary, they are there to share their qualities and to become part of.