I've recently been fascinated by the the data surrounding the effects of placebo. People have been recorded to trump any number of medical conditions ranging in severity from depression all the way to HIV+ turned negative and stage 4 terminal cancer. All from sugar pills, well more interestingly, from the power of the mind. While watching a TED talk about placebos, the speaker was recanting a story of an individual that was recovering from a placebo that was intricately fabricated by his physician until the company that produced what he thought he was consuming released a full analysis of the product he thought he was receiving on a special testing phase of the medicines test cycle. The patient had been showing a freakish recovery while he was convinced the meds where working, but after discovering it was bunk, he did a full 180
and died. The power of the human mind is crazy! Most of the Theists around here have whatever they get coming to them. They search it out on an Atheist Forum and get what they get, but what about everyone else in my everyday life? All the people I work with or share a day to day life with? Am I stripping them of an otherwise useful placebo source that could have potentially caused them
Good when their ability to face reality failed? I know I'm an Atheist, and morals aren't allowed, but I'm having a moral dilemma. Your thoughts...

I cannot speak for them, but I would rather know the truth and be miserable than be happy with a lie.

I'm confused. You recognize the power of the mind to cause dramatic physical changes, in the absence of a real physical cause, and want believers to "face reality". Looks to me like reality is staring you right in the face.

Yeah, it's a paradox we face every day in the medical world. A patient comes in all triumphant and happy because they've tried homeopathy/relexology/insert placebo here. Ethically, there is an obligation to inform and empower, but do you really want to? Telling them their lower back is better because their placebo led them to get off their arse and start moving around might jeopardise it.

Of course there is research which shows placebos can work even if you know they are placebos as well.

But to the op, have no fear, your not stripping anyone of anything. Religion has safeguards built in. You, goddless heathen scum, are of the devil you see? We can't trust anything you say. The Bible warned us against you. Thus is the status quo maintained.

In my experience the stock answer will be; "Well science doesn't know everything!" most recently one of my service users was claiming she experienced nausea due to Gamma radiation from smoke detectors. I got the stock answer after pointing out that humans can't actually sense Gamma radiation (which she claimed to be able to) and that removing or disabling the smoke alarms wasn't the best idea.

(January 28, 2014 at 12:26 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: but what about everyone else in my everyday life? All the people I work with or share a day to day life with? Am I stripping them of an otherwise useful placebo source that could have potentially caused them Good when their ability to face reality failed?

It seems as if you are giving them to key to getting the most out of life without the anchor of religion. Most won't understand it and will go on as they are, but you might be inspiring a person to much greater things. If the only 'side effect' of religion was that it buffed up people's immune systems, then it might be worth it to accept the delusion. But I'm guessing that you realize that this isn't the case.

(January 28, 2014 at 6:27 am)Mr Greene Wrote: In my experience the stock answer will be; "Well science doesn't know everything!" most recently one of my service users was claiming she experienced nausea due to Gamma radiation from smoke detectors. I got the stock answer after pointing out that humans can't actually sense Gamma radiation (which she claimed to be able to) and that removing or disabling the smoke alarms wasn't the best idea.

Tell that to Bruce Banner. On second thought maybe not. He might get angry.

Chad, the mind is a physical property of the sum. What are you suggesting? In much the same way software can change the operation of the computer without invoking a magical substance, so too does the mind control the body. You ignore the third person understanding of the cause and interaction of thought and focus on your first person experience of the effect. You need both perspectives to make the complete understanding. What the experience is like in the first person is not the cause. It's one aspect of the phenomena, not the sum. To me, it's as if your intentionally complicating things to make room for something you want to be true, when there's absolutely no reason to actually entertain it.


@Jacob

I've convinced others to abandon their faith, and other superstitions. My moral dilemma comes in when considering the possibility of faith being the only sugar pill they had and not acquiring another solution in time for when they are faced with a situation that such a dose is needed. Many people are genuinely good hearted and oblivious to the topics we discuss around here. They live a life oblivious to their ignorance, and get great satisfaction from pretending to know things that they do not. And while this can be a harmful way to make decisions, for some, it's most common application is only with regards to the existence of the supernatural, and from it, they do not create conflict, but derive only hope. To Tonus' point, I agree. I, being an Atheist have zero need for pretending to know things about Gods to be happy, and can look no further than this site to find plenty of other people who are equally or even more satisfied with their Godless lives. It's a weird gray line for me though. While I like to believe that I have an autonomous moral outlook, I also think the spreading of bad ideas derived by insufficient inquiry and bad evidence is a harmful practice, except...when it isn't. And that is the part that I'm having trouble with. Jacob touched on that part a bit in the medical industry's ethical responsibility. Oy Vey!

I find your response to Jacob, a bit self-conceited. You present yourself as the enlightened purveyor of wisdom to the ignorant masses, i.e. a “reality salesman”. To me, your ontological naturalism sounds more like dogma than encouragement to inquire into the mysteries of existence.
You fail to distinguish between the knowing subject and ideas, which are the means by which we know. A computational model of the brain explains how the brain produces something akin to propositional relationships and information bearing signals. Computational model do not explain how you can have any awareness of the content, or meaning, of those relationships and signals.
It is not sufficient say that the brain responds mechanistically to sense data that produce only mechanical movements and then suddenly consciousness magically appears, like a rabbit from a hat. You want to wish a knowing subject into existence by moving a sparkly wand and throwing confetti just because that’s how you want things to work. You need a rabbit first, before you can bring it out from hiding.
The only problem with dualism is the interaction problem. But nothing prevents a source of intentionality from influencing brain states by means of some quantum process. I often hear that future advances in science will allow us to better understand consciousness. If that is so, then why do materialists insist that consciousness must only be explained by 19th century physics? After more than 100 years of trying no viable theory has been forthcoming. We need to start looking elsewhere. Why do you cling to failed models that are so blatantly counter-intuitive?

I honestly don't know how exactly consciousness works, but I don't pretend to know things about magical rabbits and hats as a substitute for my lack of knowledge either. Coincidentally, that's exactly what you're doing when you invoke the concept of immaterial substances as the hat, and consciousness is your rabbit. I see the hat, I see the rabbit, and I don't believe in magic. My intuition tells me there's a natural explanation for it, and yours says it's magic. I'm glad you recognize that there's an interaction problem, but I'm confused as to why you then went from a seemingly sincere admittance to having insufficient evidence to your claim to asserting a solution by means of "source of intentionality". Please expand on this thought while sticking to your dualist view. Keep in mind that as soon as you begin using physical terms, your whole concept falls apart. Even on a quantum level, it is matter that is being talked about. Waves, energy, matter, these are all physical terms. Describe to me this source of pure "intentionality", what are some of it's properties? Spare no detail, I'm very interested in shedding this dogma of materialism that you say I have.