Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not exactly. A placebo is something that works because you think it's going to, but otherwise for no good reason. There is good reason to think that a positive attitude really does help with the healing process. There is a real mind-body connection, but the workings are as yet poorly understood.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Not exactly. A placebo is something that works because you think it's going to, but otherwise for no good reason. There is good reason to think that a positive attitude really does help with the healing process. There is a real mind-body connection, but the workings are as yet poorly understood.<< Well said. I find the human mind to be a fascinating thing. As much as we know, we still know relatively little about how our brain actually works, how memory works, etc. I also agree with the comments about having a positive attitude in regards to medical care. I know my reactionary posts often have me coming across as the surly, pessimistic atheist. I don't see myself as any of those things; rather, I'm deeply frustrated by the certainty some people want to impose on others over their religious beliefs, and their inability to comprehend the simple truth that one man's religion is another man's superstition. I don't care if someone believes in the Easter Bunny and prays to it nightly. But you better believe I'm going to be critical of parents who rely on the Easter Bunny to feed their children with candy and colored eggs instead of going out and getting a job. Not taking your kid to a doctor and praying instead is doing essentially the same thing.
Originally Posted By johnno52 >A placebo is something that works because you think it's going to, but otherwise for no good reason.< When researchers use these placebos, the patients think they are getting the "Real" thing. Wouldn't this invoke the positive attitude? Its to trick the mind (patient) that something good is going to help you get better. If the mind is tricked into thinking this wouldn't it act in the same way? As you say "the workings are as yet poorly understood", well can it be said about the faith and healing?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I know my reactionary posts often have me coming across as the surly, pessimistic atheist.> Not at all.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <When researchers use these placebos, the patients think they are getting the "Real" thing. Wouldn't this invoke the positive attitude?> Not necessarily. I know if I was being given a trial drug, I wouldn't necessarily assume my condition would get better. I might just as well be worried about side effects. I might even be aware that I might be getting a placebo. <Its to trick the mind (patient) that something good is going to help you get better. If the mind is tricked into thinking this wouldn't it act in the same way?> It's a somewhat similar mechanism, but not the same thing. Also, a typical optimistic "regimen" isn't just keeping a good attitude but also doing things like improving diet, being mindful to reduce stress, etc. <As you say "the workings are as yet poorly understood", well can it be said about the faith and healing?> Indeed. We're not sure why these things work, exactly. Hey, it could even be divine intervention. Me, I believe in God, but to me a God who intervenes because one family's little girl is sick and they pray for Him to help her, by definition does NOT intervene for another family with a sick little girl who is praying just as sincerely and who is just as deserving. That doesn't make sense to me, nor does chalking it up to "God works in mysterious ways," or "this family was given this tragedy for a reason." I pretty much believe in the enlightenment view of God as a benevolent "watchmaker" who put us here and started the gears spinning, and lets US make our own world and mistakes and triumphs, rarely if ever intervening directly. However, keeping a positive mindset, including prayer if that helps you personally, can be very powerful.
Originally Posted By johnno52 >Not necessarily. I know if I was being given a trial drug, I wouldn't necessarily assume my condition would get better. I might just as well be worried about side effects. I might even be aware that I might be getting a placebo.< Would you be so concerned if you have been told that you have a terminal disease? >Indeed. We're not sure why these things work, exactly. Hey, it could even be divine intervention.< This is one statement I think where we can all agree. However with Oncologists they need a little more evidence before they treat a patient.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>Not necessarily. I know if I was being given a trial drug, I wouldn't necessarily assume my condition would get better. I might just as well be worried about side effects. I might even be aware that I might be getting a placebo.<> <Would you be so concerned if you have been told that you have a terminal disease?> Sure. Trial drugs are trial drugs for a reason. Maybe it would make me worse. <>Indeed. We're not sure why these things work, exactly. Hey, it could even be divine intervention.<> <This is one statement I think where we can all agree. However with Oncologists they need a little more evidence before they treat a patient.> Well sure, but that's kind of getting off topic.
Originally Posted By johnno52 >Well sure, but that's kind of getting off topic.< LOL I think this is the closest we have been about the topic. >However with Oncologists they need a little more evidence before they treat a patient.> What I meant is that this person needs more than the patient's faith and/or their positive attitude to have a successful result. Unless you say he (Oncologist) has faith in intervention and we go around in circles again.
Originally Posted By dshyates Studies have also shown that getting a seriously ill patient a pet like a dog actually helps in the healing process. They believe it is not only the love, affection, and joy a pet can give, but also the feeling that the animal depends on them.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>>>I would never argue that atheists do not have morals. However, if you do not base morals on something that is transcendent and unchanging (like God), then your morals tend to change based on you, rather than you changing based on your morals.<< Except of course, God is entirely changing. God changes depending on what attributes people want to assign to him.<< People can assign all they want. If there is a God, the morality of God is independent of all of that. >>You of course will interpret it differently, but it's really just people projecting themselves and their own morals on god.<< If that was the case, I wouldn’t have to change any of my behavior to conform to the morality of God. >>God has been used to justify genocide, racism, sexism, etc.<< I can kill in your name. Doesn’t mean you supported it. Aren’t some things right and other things wrong? And isn’t it possible that there is one religion whose ideals gets those morals more accurately than other religions? If so, what’s wrong with followers of that faith reminding each other of those morals? How can you be sure there isn’t a God who has communicated moral principles to humanity? Bogus faith healing and wishful thinking and mind over matter (in a mystical sense) have been around for a very long time, independent of Biblical principles. The Bible simply does not tell Christians to pray INSTEAD of seeking medical care.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What I meant is that this person needs more than the patient's faith and/or their positive attitude to have a successful result. Unless you say he (Oncologist) has faith in intervention and we go around in circles again.> Well of course they need more than that; I never said differently. What I said was that a positive attitude has been shown to be a helpful factor.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And isn’t it possible that there is one religion whose ideals gets those morals more accurately than other religions?> They certainly all claim to.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>People can assign all they want. If there is a God, the morality of God is independent of all of that.<< Except there's no way to tell the difference between those assigning him attributes and the people who are just lucky enough to know what it is. Especially when they use the same book, claim to worship the same God, etc. You think you know, but you don't, and you're no different than billions of others who think they know. There's simply no difference. It's a pretty crappy God that can't even make it clearer than it is. The fact that there's so many beliefs seems to suggest that God doesn't care all that much about us if he can't even clarify that. >>If that was the case, I wouldn’t have to change any of my behavior to conform to the morality of God.<< Do individuals sometimes change their behavior to conform to their interpretations of what God's morality is? Sure. It's why people who convert to Islam change their behavior. But over longer periods of time, whole cultures simply change God's morals so they don't have to change their behavior, or they do it to conform to new social standards. The entire southern United States did that over the course of a century and a half. In the early 19th century, Southern whites saw slavery as a necessary evil, something that would die out eventually. But as northern abolitionists began to use the Bible and religion to denounce slavery, southerners began to do the same thing. They claimed that slavery was God's way, that it was the higher way. They had plenty of Biblical references to back them up. Only in the last few decades have many southerners abandoned these notions. What makes them wrong and you right? These people used the same book you do, worshipped the same God and the same Jesus, and believed largely in the same theology. And of course, God was too busy playing games with people's heads with all of this nonsense to interfere in the slavery question. Instead, I guess he just "worked through" someone like William Lloyd Garrison or Abraham Lincoln. He didn't want to get his hands too dirty, I suppose. >>I can kill in your name. Doesn’t mean you supported it.<< But if I don't say it's not ok, then we'll never know, will we. God's mighty silent when it counts, it seems. And of course, the Bible has examples of murder sanctioned by God, so it's not like we can point to that and say "God's never approved of killing anyone." So apparently the only thing that separates divinely approved murder and regular murder is about 3,000 years. If it happens millennia ago, it's Biblical; if it happens today, it's insanity.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>Except there's no way to tell the difference between those assigning him attributes and the people who are just lucky enough to know what it is. Especially when they use the same book, claim to worship the same God, etc.<< This is why I study and debate Scripture. >>There's simply no difference.<< There is. But some people would rather throw up their hands. >>It's a pretty crappy God that can't even make it clearer than it is.<< That's called personal freedom. People are free to lie, misrepresent, misinterpret, even delude themselves. >>The fact that there's so many beliefs seems to suggest that God doesn't care all that much about us if he can't even clarify that.<< He has. >>But over longer periods of time, whole cultures simply change God's morals so they don't have to change their behavior, or they do it to conform to new social standards.<< That's one reason why Scriptures come in handy. To be able to cite some clear commands from God. >>But if I don't say it's not ok, then we'll never know, will we. God's mighty silent when it counts, it seems.<< Not at all. God has made some things very clear. But of course, a lot of people don't want to listen to what He has said. >>And of course, the Bible has examples of murder sanctioned by God, so it's not like we can point to that and say "God's never approved of killing anyone."<< There is a difference between murdering and killing. Who better to judge who deserves death than God?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "That's one reason why Scriptures come in handy." Which Scriptures would those be again? One of the many versions of the Bible? Or maybe you mean the Koran?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "There is a difference between murdering and killing. Who better to judge who deserves death than God?" But, of course, it's not usually God who's actually doing the killing, but some surrogate who claims that God gave him permission to kill.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>This is why I study and debate Scripture.<< But you start with several assumptions and work backwards from there. You assume, for example, that it is scripture (even though modern scholarship shows otherwise). I could spend hours watching episodes of Star Trek and debating it with people. In fact, die hard Star Wars and Star Trek fans have written dozens of books analyzing the philosophies of these science fiction stories. They pull all sorts of "teachings" from them; but it doesn't mean they actually are valuable sources of eternal truth, even if there are nuggets of wisdom in there worth exploring. >>There is. But some people would rather throw up their hands.<< There isn't, but some people would rather believe that they're somehow the right ones, the special ones, the different ones. They need a way to separate the "us" from the "them"; they behave *exactly* like the other groups they insist they're actually different from. Ironically, I recognize in you *precisely* the same behavior I witness in my Mormon friends you so casually label "cultists." You're the same. >>That's called personal freedom. People are free to lie, misrepresent, misinterpret, even delude themselves.<< No, that's called one of thousands of excuses invented to explain away God's seeming powerlessness and aloofness. People have had to come up with ways over the years to explain why each "miracle" also has a perfectly natural explanation, why their religion is better than another, and why God is entirely random in who he chooses to bestow his blessings on. >>He has.<< No, he hasn't. He's allowed people, like I noted above, to delude themselves that he's let them know that their way is right, but that everyone else just missed the boat. Again, mighty convenient. >>That's one reason why Scriptures come in handy. To be able to cite some clear commands from God.<< See above. You have no evidence that they're scripture (quite the contrary, actually) but you start with that assumption and work backwards from there. It's like assuming that the Lord of the Rings was actually a documentary history of the beginning of earth. If one starts with one wrong assumption, their entire view of the world will be impacted by it. >>Not at all. God has made some things very clear. But of course, a lot of people don't want to listen to what He has said.<< Evangelical pearls of wisdom will play well in church, but not among critical thinkers. God hasn't made anything clear; if he had, it would be clear. It's absurd to somehow blame the listeners for just not getting the message (but those who believe like you picked it up ok - another convenience). >>There is a difference between murdering and killing. Who better to judge who deserves death than God?<< This obviously completely ignores my point to try and share yet another one liner that plays well among the faithful, but fails miserably in the critical thinking category. The point I made (and which you just inadvertently proved) is that anyone can kill in the name of God, and then defend themselves by saying God sanctioned it. Of course, God will never actually speak up and say that he didn't sanction it; quite the contrary, the Bible is replete with stories of people who heard God's command to kill and carried it out. Who are we to tell someone today that they can't do the same?
Originally Posted By johnno52 >Bible is replete with stories of people who heard God's command to kill and carried it out. Who are we to tell someone today that they can't do the same?< So are you saying, if someone kills another and says, "God told him to" then we are not to punish him as we have no right to question or doubt?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So are you saying, if someone kills another and says, "God told him to" then we are not to punish him as we have no right to question or doubt?<< I'm not, but it seems that's what RC Collins is saying. Why should we believe the Bible if it has stories of God telling people to kill, then not believe people who claim the same thing today? My point is that the logic just doesn't work, and that the Bible is entirely unreliable as a source of truth or information about God.
Originally Posted By Mr X It's a morality teaching tool, a book of fables designed to instruct people in how to behave. Anyone who takes it literally needs to have their head examined. Literally.
