RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 19, 2016 at 2:03 am
(This post was last modified: May 19, 2016 at 2:07 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(May 19, 2016 at 1:35 am)Huggy74 Wrote:(May 19, 2016 at 12:05 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Nope. He's a dude with a PhD. My mom's a chick with a PhD. My dad's a dude with an EngD. So what?Don't act like you referring to him as "some dude" wasn't an attempt at marginalizing his opinion.
Fair enough. I've been dealing with another asshole with a PhD all day, in debunking the bullshit of an anti-trans, anti-gay activist who uses his former position at Johns Hopkins to peddle debunked, old psychological ideas which conservatives gobble up because they suit their prejudices.
The point remains, however, that no matter how well credentialed an individual writing an opinion piece is, that they're still just "some dude" with a single opinion. Unless that opinion is accompanied by references and represents the consensus of scientific understanding of the subject, then it's just some dude, no matter his position or title. (I'd also like to add, here: Oh, NOW you want to lean heavily on a PhD's opinion as definitive on a subject, after ignoring the literally hundreds of thousands of evolutionary biologists out there?)
There is zero evidence that it is faith in a magical being that is causing the healing. If you would have actually read the NIH article I cited, it goes on for pages about the various possibilities, what we do and don't know about them, and so on. The NIH article cites multiple major studies that have been done in an attempt to understand the various phenomena, and represents the scientific consensus on the subject... not the opinion of any one human being.
More importantly, you are positing a magical causation to what is undoubtedly a natural phenomenon. You say it is irrelevant how it happens, but I think the exact opposite is true. It is undoubtedly a natural occurrence because it can be replicated by known, non-magical means. You dismiss that by calling it irrelevant, as if your magical hypothesis is proved, but the dominant idea at the moment is that our endocrine system is boosted in certain circumstances that have to do with our mental state, resulting in higher immune response. There is a high biological cost in maintaining a hyped-up immune system at all times, and there are psychological conditions (such as depression) which are shown to reduce the immune response, so things which help overcome the mental states that produce the chemical levels related to depression (and other conditions that do the same, for example high stress, in which the body puts its resources into short-term survival) are undoubtedly going to be helpful, as your quotation of Dr. Woollacott's work suggests.
Faith traditions seem to provide measurable benefits to one's sense of wellness, especially in overcoming loneliness and depression (indeed, religions specifically target such people for recruitment), by giving a sense of community and belonging, which to a species which evolved in small tribal societies is almost as strong a biological imperative as eating and breathing. That does NOT mean that magic is involved. And if having faith is really no different from eating a sugar pill that I'm told will cure me (the Placebo Effect), then it's not supportive of the claims you're trying to make, or imply at least, here.
The Biblical claim to which you refer is talking about magic. Literal magic. Not the Placebo Effect. We're the ones claiming that any "cures" out there are the result of the Placebo Effect-- nothing is happening except for a couple of natural phenomena triggered by certain states of mind, and the related reaction of the endocrine and immune systems.
So you've got nothing, and you've made our case for us. Thanks!
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.