Help: jumped on for seeking scientific proof of spiritual healing

[psychoslice]

But why wait until something is proven right, of course there is good and bad in this, but there is also good and bad in medical treatment, after all how many people die because of medical treatment ?.

Using cures which are not proven to be cures is dangerous for two reasons:
1) The "cures" may have harmful side effects, including (possibly) an acceleration of the onset of the disease.
2) Time and money wasted on "cures" could be better spent in research (if not terminal) or in just living a full life (if terminal)
3) If people are stupid enough to believe anecdotes about "cures," then they may see the "cures" as a substitute to chemotherapy, psychotropic drugs, or other actual cures, causing themselves injury or reducing their lifespan. That a non-zero number of people have died of curable diseases while holding magic crystals or Bibles in their hands is a good example of this.

As for death by medicine-- this is innumeracy rearing its ugly head. Yes, many people die in hospitals or under care. Usually, it's because they have an incurable disease. Sometimes, it's because their doctor made a mistake, and mistakes in the medical field can result in death pretty quickly. But overall, there's no comparison between actual medicine and "spiritual healing" or "alternative medicine" or "traditional medicine." With all its ills and pains, Western medicine is about a million times better than anything else.

Think of Poker. If you start with a pair of Aces, you can still lose. In a high stakes game, you might lose everything. But you'd be a fool to throw away those Aces for a pair of sevens. And that's what people who give up on Western medicine are doing. NO system guarantees a win-- but the smart money's on the Aces, even though we've all heard heart-breaking stories of bad beats.

What you are saying has truth within it, but there is truth also in natural therapies. I am a naturopath but no longer practicing, I got good results with people, I remember one woman that couldn't get pregnant, so I put her on an all fruit diet to cleans her system, not long after she was pregnant, and her second pregnancy followed with no problems, she was going to a doctor for a number of years trying to get pregnant, so the diet must of worked. And what can be so harmful with an all fruit diet, we are what we eat, our whole body is made up of all that we put into our body, every cell is influenced by it.
Most doctors know only little about nutrition, one doctor that I know told me she only had a one day lecture on nutrition lol.

[dennyg]

People who believe in a higher power tend to overcome illness slightly better than those who are atheist.
This is by no means evidence of a god, but it points to the fact that positive thinking is beneficial to the body's ability to heal.

[Homeless Nutter]

What you are saying has truth within it, but there is truth also in natural therapies. I am a naturopath but no longer practicing, I got good results with people, I remember one woman that couldn't get pregnant, so I put her on an all fruit diet to cleans her system, not long after she was pregnant, and her second pregnancy followed with no problems, she was going to a doctor for a number of years trying to get pregnant, so the diet must of worked. And what can be so harmful with an all fruit diet, we are what we eat, our whole body is made up of all that we put into our body, every cell is influenced by it.
Most doctors know only little about nutrition, one doctor that I know told me she only had a one day lecture on nutrition lol.

So much wrong with what you're saying I don't even know where to start. Anecdotal evidence, motivated reasoning, questionable cause (correlation is not causation), poisoning the well (you have no idea what most doctors know - you are not one). And some "new age-y" platitudes.

You say you had "good results"? How do you know, did you keep records and checked statistics? There are thousands upon thousands of quacks all over the world, making a good living from placebo. How can you tell you were not one of them?

Of course some "natural" remedies work, because nature is made of chemicals. Modern medicine is based on the same chemicals, only isolated and in precisely controlled doses, so you don't need to poison yourself with tree bark, to get an effect of an aspirin.

As for all-fruit diet, if you knew anything about nutrition you'd know that there can be plenty wrong with any restrictive diet, especially over prolonged periods of time. It all depends on medical condition of the person, which you're unlikely to be able to assess accurately. And doctors are not nutritionists. Nutritionists are nutritionists.

Oh, well. At least you're retired from qu... naturopathy.

[robvalue]

People who believe in a higher power tend to overcome illness slightly better than those who are atheist.
This is by no means evidence of a god, but it points to the fact that positive thinking is beneficial to the body's ability to heal.

Do you have a source for this?

[dennyg]

People who believe in a higher power tend to overcome illness slightly better than those who are atheist.
This is by no means evidence of a god, but it points to the fact that positive thinking is beneficial to the body's ability to heal.

Do you have a source for this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/n...gests.html

[robvalue]

(Edited several times on reflection)

Thank you, I shall have a look.

I agree that if a study shows such thing, this is evidence for positive thinking, or at least thinking about something you consider positive. Which I certainly don't deny. The placebo effect is powerful.

It would suggest atheists need to step their game up in term of replicating that placebo effect through such things as positive thinking.

---

However... interesting though it may be, I don't understand what practical use this has.

Belief is a state of mind, so an atheist cannot "choose" to become a theist anyway, so cannot gain this perceived benefit, at least not this way.

And I suppose the other way round, a theist would have to do everything they could to avoid critical thinking [in relation to their faith], in case it damaged their faith... which would have separate consequences.

It could however point to a lack of positive thinking in atheists.

Of course.... the situation blows my mind. What god has allowed your liver to break? And may allow you to die getting another one? Why is disease even a problem? But I digress :p

[Homeless Nutter]

However... interesting though it may be, I don't understand what practical use this has.
[...]

Justification for religious indoctrination of children.

Hmmm... That gives me an idea. Maybe I can sue my religion teachers and the Catholic Church, for failure at brain-washing me? Their pathetic inability to make sense deprived me of magically boosted immune system...

But anyhow - I find myself thinking way more positively, when I don't have to deal with religion.

[robvalue]

Uck... well... yes, I take your point.

But if you say that indoctrination may produce this benefit, to be fair you have to weigh up the potential damage caused by indoctrination. Which I would argue is a lot, and more significant than the perceived gain of this study, so overall it's bad. And that's before even looking at the morality of indoctrination.

That's if this study is even a good one, it may be, I don't know. I'd have to look into it further.

[Homeless Nutter]

Uck... well... yes, I take your point.

But if you say that indoctrination may produce this benefit, to be fair you have to weigh up the potential damage caused by indoctrination. Which I would argue is a lot, and more significant than the perceived gain of this study, so overall it's bad. And that's before even looking at the morality of indoctrination.

That's if this study is even a good one, it may be, I don't know. I'd have to look into it further.

Well - I'm sure there are conflicting studies regarding such ideologically charged subject. And religious organizations will usually jump at every opportunity to "prove" their value to society and demand access to young, naive minds.

We may perceive religious - or any other - indoctrination as potentially dangerous and limiting, but there is a lot to be said for obedience and dependence, especially when you want to control societies, or "farm" people.

Religion is basically human husbandry. Priest classes have been shaping humankind for millenia, by imposing belief systems on very young humans, then exterminating, or banishing those, that wouldn't conform. The rest would be "allowed" to breed - with mediation and guidance from religious authorities. Come next generation - rinse and repeat.

Just like we bred dogs and other animals to be useful and submissive - trained them in whatever we wanted them to be good at, picked the best ones, bred them, disposed of the rest. Over thousands and thousands of generations we created animals that are easy to train, obedient and predictable, comparing to their wild counter-parts.

I'm not saying it's ethical to treat humans as animals, but I can see why some humans would want that.

[robvalue]

Oh yeah. Religion is about control and subduing the masses, no question. But I think the wafer thin levels of religion still left in England show that it's no longer at all necessary for a society to function, if it ever was. Religion is much more like a dictatorship. And morally, I can't get behind that. But of course if someone can get away with it, they may not care about the morality, or have their own weird view about it.

In fairness, some people may well like being subdued and not having to think for themselves.