Healing and the Power of Faith
Offline "And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: for she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour." Matthew 9:20-22 KJV
Can an individual's faith really lead to healing? The unbeliever says "no." But the scientific evidence says otherwise. Clinical studies have demonstrated that positive belief can lead to healing. It's called the placebo effect. IOW, if you believe a treatment will work, then it is more likely to actually work. Conversely, negative belief or skepticism can lead to harmful effects. This is known as the nocebo effect. Both the placebo effect and the nocebo effect are well known in medicine.
The placebo (typically a sugar pill) has proven successful in a variety of illnesses or disorders - especially in managing pain, treating ulcers and clinical depression.
Placebo analgesia is more likely to work the more severe the pain[122] It can be effective: one study found for postoperative pain following the extraction of the third molar, that a saline injected while telling the patient it was a powerful painkiller was as potent as a 6–8 mg dose of morphine.[123](source: Wikipedia: Placebo)
The placebo proved to be almost as effective as the drug "cimetidine" in treating gastric or duodenal ulcers.
A meta-study of 31 placebo-controlled trials of the gastric acid secretion inhibitor drug Cimetidine in the treatment of gastric or duodenal ulcers found that placebo treatments, in many cases, were as effective as active drugs: of the 1692 patients treated in the 31 trials, 76% of the 916 treated with the drug were "healed", and 48% of the 776 treated with placebo were "healed".[132](source: Wikipedia: Placebo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#cite_note-Moerman_book-131
The placebo accounts for 75% of the causal efficacy of anti-depressant medication.
A meta-analysis in 1998 found that 75% of the effectiveness of anti-depressant medication is due to the placebo-effect rather than the treatment itself.[128](source: Wikipedia: Placebo)
This is not a small thing. The anti-depressant drug business is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry. The costs to the healthcare system are staggering.
The bottom line is that faith heals and I have just provided you with the scientific evidence to prove it.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
You're the one saying the placebo faith is solely on faith - If you only just now started to read the stuff you cite then I've accomplished something.
The point is that the biochemistry of the belief triggers the biochemistry of the healing - a fact you haven't refuted and now don't seem to be denying.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
They were entirely relevant to the OP. Provide evidence of a placebo effect raising someone from the dead and I'll give you props. Otherwise, the only things it has shown is that if a person believes they are being treated by a medicine they know of, then some will say they feel better when asked after treated.
Also, you obviously didn't watch the video.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Translation: "I cannot refute the argument as presented in the OP of this thread. Therefore, I will attempt to save face by employing a diversionary tactic."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Nah. More like "There is no meat left on the carcass of this argument so I may as well make a xylophone out of the bones and play a tune."
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The bottom line is the placebo effect based soley on the subject's belief (i.e. FAITH or TRUST) in the effectiveness of the treatment. How that belief, faith, or trust is really irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that faith can lead to healing.
Blah, blah, blah, blah...ad nauseum. Now, since you have not been able to refute the argument that I have posed in the OP of this thread, then this debate is over. IOW, I win and you lose.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley, you don't have to whine and cry just because you can't win a debate.
There are OTHER things out there you can try to be good at. Really. Take a deep breath.
It's all okay.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
What a pathetic act of desperation! Whether the faith is based on evidence or not has no bearing on the efficacy of the faith to produce the placebo effect. All that is required is that the individual must believe in the effectiveness of the treatment. How exactly that beleif is elicited is irrelevant. IOW, if an individual truly believes that placing a twisted horn-shaped amulet (a placebo) around his neck by a qualified folk healer will remove a dreaded illness caused by the evil eye, then it is more likely to work! Why? Because the placebo effect is based soley on the subject's belief in the effectiveness of the treatment.
By the way, how is it really possible to believe in something without any evidence whatsoever? Clearly, this type of faith must be something very mysterious. The atheist's definition of faith lends more credence to the idea that faith is a divine gift.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Only if you count self-contradiction as a win. Do you not read what you write to people?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Obviously you didn't watch the video.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Belief plays a role in the placebo-effect, faith does not? LOL!
This debate is over. I win; you lose. I can only hope that you will learn form this experience.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I'm sure that by now you mentioned your definition of "faith" somewhere. I'll go have a look at that further down and see if you wasted my time or not.
And the relevant question here is wether or not you can call it "faith" if it's belief with evidence. Since your OP is all about squeezing the word "faith' in there, it is most certainly very relevant indeed.
Just exactly what you're argueing here becomes less clear the more you post, so that remains to be seen.
I tried to make you face the reality of the consequences of your claims. Like you said, you "don't give a damn". I think that provides an insight in your character at least.
You call what you're doing "debating" ?
All that hot air, just for me ? Why, I'm touched.
It has bearing on wether you can call it faith or not.
Well, no, that's not all that's required. As I explained, for a conditioned response to work, the condition would need to be met at least once.
No, it's not. This is about wether you can justifiably call it faith or not. Actually, since it's your claims we're talking about here, it's about how you personally define faith.
Got clinical trial results for that too, right ? Btw, how did he get "qualified" ? Did he actually produce results ? Which would give the individual the evidence needed to believe and trigger the placebo-effect ? Thanks for proving my point again.
This is the second time you dropped "faith". Are you saying that to you, faith, and belief supported by evidence are the same thing ?
Lol ! You tell me ! You're the theist ! Seriously, it's called "kidding yourself".
People kid themselves all the time. Others are conned. Not a lot of mystery there.
Er..no, it doesn't. It kind of makes you look like gullible idiots or devious liars.
Obviously, you didn't watch the video.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Belief supported by evidence, yup. I'm thinking that's not how you define faith, or is it ?
Good to see you don't take yourself too seriously.
Huh ? So "faith" = belief supported by evidence ? And you proved you are somehow qualified to interpret medical data ? And you would indeed choose faith healing instead of conventional treatment when your life was on the line ? Gee, looks like I missed a few posts.
If all that happened, then you sure did.
Well, no, see, if all the above is true, then we actually agree with each other, so we both win ! Yay for us !
I'm certainly learning some things about you, that's for darn sure.
Belief is based on at least some evidence (the patient believes the doctor won't harm him, the woman with the issue of blood probably heard of or perhaps even saw Jesus heal - the Bible is conveniently vague on that point). Faith is based on no evidence (if you go by Paul's definition) and indeed, often exists in the face of contrary evidence.
As your definition of a "win" is being completely and utterly refuted - enjoy your victory.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No, that is not what I said. Certainly, faith can be misplaced and lead to something that is detrimental to your well-being. For example, you can place your faith or trust in an unscrupulus lawyer who is not looking out for your best interest. However, the point is that faith itself is a positive belief, not a negative one. And the nocebo effect is not based on a positive belief, but a negative one.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I'm really hurt. That means a lot coming from you...
I think it's about time you give up and end this. Just admit that it's nothing more than placebo and that religion is irrelevant here, or provide evidence that it's substantially better than the placebo effect. Otherwise your just showing that placebos work.
He apparently didn't read the OP either.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Paisley, all beliefs are considered faith under your definition then. Give ONE example where I couldn't possibly redefine a belief as "faith" under your rhetorical rouse. With anything you say I could just cite the person's lack of knowledge about how things work on a more micro scale and call it faith. Or for that matter I could just throw out some mumbo-jumbo about it taking "faith" to "know" if there even such a thing as truth at all.
You have no argument, all you're doing is saying belief = belief and trying to sidetrack it to give religion some sort of legitimacy (yes, we know that's what you're trying to do). I've stated before that in a general sense, faith and belief are the exact same thing, it's just that faith is a socially demoted term used to sort out faulty concepts. The people taking the placebo have evidence in the form of doctors and medication (whether it's the legit stuff or not). Religious people have there own form of evidence in the form of written scripture and the social networks of churches. Trying to link the faith you're using to a faith in a particular god is so far out of context that you simply aren't smart enough for this debate if you can't see why.
The only argument that can be logically derived from the placibo effect at all is that it might be better to believe a lie (whatever the perceived positive outcome is) as long as it does more good than harm. It's this sort of psychological mechanism that gives a small glimpse at why religioin has such a hold on people.
Would you condone the use of lies as long as it makes people feel better? Is this really the road you think is morally acceptable to take?
It's commonly known that things like chronic anxiety can causes illness as well, not just in humans either. I just want to know if you think it's the belief itself that's healing/hurting people or the physical reactions to things like fear that are hardwired into the brain to produce stress that are doing the work?
Placebos have worked as well or even better than antidepressant drugs. A recent study has demonstrated that placebos had a higher CURE rate of depression (32%) than Zoloft (25%). It's important to remember that I am citing a source that supports these claims. 1
1 "Against Depression a Sugar Pill Is Hard to Beat" by Shankar Vedantam, Staff Writer for the Washington Post
It's important to remember that in your previous post you were asking why the antidepressant drug business is such a huge business. One answer may be that "people are becoming dependent on anti-depressants" (I believe the same reason applies to the tobacco and cigarette business). And it's important to remember that I cited a source to support this claim!
Also, there are effective treatments for depression that involve faith. It's called the placebo effect. And it's important to remember that I cited a source to support this claim!
Moreover, there already was an effective treatment for depression prior to advent of antidepressant drugs in the 1980's. It was called psychotherapy - a term which literally means "treatment of the soul." And psychotherapy is based on a relationship between the therapist and patient which (like any relationship) definitely involves trust and faith!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
True, I did say that faith heals. And I cited sources to support my claim that the placebo works, which you are simply refusing to acknowledge and thereby revealing your intellectual dishonesty. However, I have never argued that relieving pain in and of itself constituted healing. What I have argued that relieving pain is a big deal to those who are suffering from pain!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Placebo effect works != faith heals as the placebo effect is not solely faith which you admitted to me earlier.
Intellectual dishonesty? Thy name is Paisley.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
And of course I don't think anyone is 'refusing to acknowledge' the reality of the placebo effect, just that beyond clearly subjective things like experience of pain and depression, we are arguing that its effects are quite limited.
You then admit that "relieving pain [does not] in and of itself constituted healing", but refuse to accept that that makes your argument from 'placebo works' to 'faith heals' very tenuous in the extreme.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
What a lame argument. The bottom line is that you have no evidence to the contrary and therefore you have no counterargument.
I know that most ulcers are not due to stress or gastric secretion, but to the bacterium known as Helicobacter pylori. In fact, the Wiki article stresses this very point in order to highlight the significance of the placebo effect in healing ulcers.
The honorable thing for you to do now is to simply say "touche," therby humbly conceding the point and the argument. Unfortunately, it does not appear that you have any honor.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I never mentioned God in the argument I posed in the OP. IOW, you're making a straw-man argument.
The Wikipedia article has cited sources (professional medical journals). Attacking Wikipedia is not a very good ruse. Why? Because it is the greatest repository of human knowledge and is growing exponentially even as I write this statement. If you actually have a problem with a claim in the Wikipedia article, then the onus is upon you to state why it is in error and to provide documentation to support your claim. Certainly, no source is free from error. However, simply saying that it is in error without backing it up doesn't mean anything.
This is a ridiculous argument. I have never denied that belief leads to biochemical changes. In fact, the Wikipedia explicilty discusses some of the biochemical processes that may be involve in certain instances. However, what does this prove? Or more specifically, how does this diminish the fact that the placebo effect is based on the individual's belief in the effectiveness of the placebo? Answer: It doesn't! Of course belief in the placebo (which in itself is physically inert) leads to bodily changes and therefore to the healing of the body. This is the WHOLE POINT!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I don't hear you denying this "lame argument". In your world, that can only mean one thing : you lose.
The bottom line is that no evidence to the contrary is needed, since all those examples prove is that there is such a thing as the placebo-effect.
The conclusions you draw from these articles, however, are what this is all about, so the simple fact that you are not in the least qualified to draw any kind of conclusions from any kind of medical data, is only one of the many arguments that completly destroys your case.
This is hilarious. You underlined the question, and yet you appear to not even have read it. I asked you if you knew what other causes could influence the natural progression of the condition.I asked you if you knew why it used to be thought it was caused by stress. I'm trying to make you do some of your own thinking, so you can save some of your shredded dignity from this embarassing mess you've made.
The only thing you have underlined here is my point that you are not qualified to interpret medical data. Would you like another hint, or are you finally going to actually start studying the things you talk about ?
For putting up with your juvenile nonsense, the honourable thing to happen would be for me to get some kind of medal.
Boo hoo...no cited sources to support your counterarguments (and I am using this term very loosely)...you lose!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Boo hoo...no cited sources to support your counterarguments (and I am using this term very loosely)...you lose!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It isn't the power of faith, it's the power of belief? And you have the audacity to make the accusation that my argument centers on semantics? LOL!
Okay, have it your way: The power of BELIEF has the power to heal!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Where both placebo and 'faith' can affect physiological symptoms is indirectly via reduction of chronic stress, which is know to have direct effects on health.
This is a good discussion from a reputable source about the effects of stress.
We need to keep track of the actual causal chain to really understand what is going on - it is far more likely that placebo and faith act NOT directly on physical symptoms or effects of the health problem, but only have an effect to the extent that the problems are due to things like stress, which are directly affected by changes in one's mental state.
IOW if the problems are due to things like infectious agents which have been able to get past a healthy immune system, in someone with no obvious symptoms of mental stress or disturbance, it is unlikely that placebos etc will have much effect.
Ignoring this distinction leads to the worst effects of belief in the 'healing power of faith', where underlying physical problems are not addressed
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Sorry, almost missed this one.
Oh great, looks like I'll have to repeat myself again. Okay then : First of all, you are stil not qualified to interpret medical data.
And neither is this Shankar fellow.
I'll try to make it as simple as possible for you : Do you consider a patient cured when his symptoms are dulled for a while, only to return in full force a few days after he gets kicked out of the hospital ? There is not a single psychiatrist quoted in that article who can guarantee a recovery will last, and if someone does manage to get rid of all his symptoms for the rest of their natural life, they haven't got the foggiest idea how that might have happened (Some are more than happy to take the credit, of course).
But you do ? You figured it all out ? I have a list of patients for you to "cure". Better stock up on sugar pills, cuz it's a long one. If you're too busy, I'll send 'em over to Shankar, shall I ?
There isn't a single doctor or psychiatrist in the world who can cure a case of depression that doesn't cure itself. This is a fact that some people find out the hard way.
Oh yeah, I forgot, facts are "lame arguments".
That's a waste of a perfectly good exclamation mark. Read what I wrote. Where exactly do I disagree with you on the dependence thing ? It's only one of the many negative side-effects, but the point is, anti-depressants are still the only working tool we have to control the symptoms, which is all anyone can do at this point.
Effective treatment, you say ? Millions and millions of patients are heading to your front door right now. Gee, think of all the lives you'll save, all the money you'll make. You're gonna be rich and famous beyond your wildest dreams.
Lemme guess, could it have been one of those medical trials that you're not qualified to interpret ? You know what, I think it could be.
You know all those millions and millions of patients I just mentioned ? The ones heading to your door right now ? Guess what, they had psychotherapy. Lots of it. Many multi-billion dollars worth of the stuff. And it didn't work. Gee, I guess they didn't invest enough "faith" in their relationship with the therapist.
Now are you going to educate yourself on this subject or not ? Granted, it's going to take a lot of time and effort, but at least you'll know what you're talking about.
No ? Don't wanna ?
Oh well, I tried.
Paisely, the 'nocebo' effect is at least as strong as the placebo effect - people have died from beliefs, such as belief that they had a fatal tumor, which autopsy revealed had not grown at all, or belief they had been 'cursed' by a witchdoctor, etc.
So to be logical and consistent ( why does the thought of applying those terms to your discussion make me want to LOL? ) you have to incorporate this fact into your 'argument' - 'faith' harms as well as heals. The mind affects the body, a fact that is apparent every time we move a finger...
Positive healing is much more difficult than harming, since there are far more ways to disrupt a complex system like the human body than help it. So placebo effects on physical symptoms are far less likely than nocebo effects.
Do you really have an actual real point after all this, apart from the non sequiter chant "faith heals"?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Ouch. I guess I'm not good enough to get an ill informed and tortured logic response. Maybe next round?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Jesus told him to ignore you.
I think a serious point that I have so far not seen addressed two pages into this debate (and that by all means should be) is that you're acting on faith by making this post at all. IOW you believe that
1. Jesus existed.
-So far this is up for major debate.
2. An anonymous woman touched Jesus believing it would heal her unspecified "blood condition."
-Please provide some evidence that this ever occurred.
3. The woman was actually cured.
-The parable ends there. Can you prove that she was cured.
By addressing these points and these points only can you prove emphatically that your definition of Christian faith heals. ClockCat among others has proven quite vigorously proven that faith-healing in a modern context is hog-wash. Furthermore, the semantic games that have been played here have proven that the "faith" you're trying to mush into your definition of christian faith is just the placebo effect, which another poster has shown to be potentially statistically insignificant, regardless of the fact that it doesn't even apply to what you're really saying.
So could we please hear your arguments with regards to the three previously listed points.
Thanks.
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
Well stated. I doubt he'll take the time to respond though. He'll probably claim it doesn't pertain to the OP.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Well stated. It doesn't to pertain to the argument that I made in the OP.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Correction. A source that you had recently cited in your last post in order to refute my argument says the same thing - namely, that faith has the power to heal! And since you refused to acknowledge this or address this in your foregoing post, then I can safely assume that you concede the point.
Simply defining "belief" as a biochemical process does not change or alter the fact that belief TRIGGERS what you call the biochemistry of the healing process.
Incidentally, belief does not only "trigger" one biochemical process. The expectancy effect has a similar effect to the actual drug (i.e. to whatever type of drug that the individual believes the placebo to be.)1
1 (source: Wikipedia: Placebo)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
In my opinion, Paisley is analogous to a bathroom stall with an opinionated statement written on the door. You can write whatever reply you wish, but the original statement is not going to change in response to your argument.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
What evidence or proof is there (besides the scientific evidence that belief in and of itself has the ability to heal) that the placebo (e.g. an inert sugar pill) will work?
Also, would an individual who believes, as you say - "without any evidence," obtain the same results as an individual who believes with evidence. If not, why not?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yes, I have. And I used a dictionary definition of the term. (I am happy to help the vocabulary-challenged. Although, I must admit it becomes pointless to engage in debates with thoses who cannot grasp the most basic of terms.)
Okay. Would an individual who believes without any evidence whatsover (as you are inclined to say) yield the same results as an individual who believes only with evidence? If not, why not?
Also, what proof or evidence does the subject have that the placebo (e.g. an inert sugar pill) will work?
Finally, please explain to me how one believes without any evidence whatsoever. How does that work exactly?
What is beginning to become abundantly clear is that you're seeking to obfuscate the issue in order to evade the issue.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
My underlining.
Paisley, you are clearly conflating meaning 1 and 2. That is the point you keep evading.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So, what is the condition that must be met in order for the placebo to yield positive results?
I have already provided a dictionary definition of faith.
Your declaration of victory is slightly premature. The question here is whether or not there are individuals who believe in the power of healers and their treatment (even if that treatment consists of nothing more than the waving of a magic wand). And if there are, then why wouldn't the placebo (i.e. the healers and their treatment) achieve the same results for these individuals?
I don't subscribe to the atheist's definition of faith (i.e. that faith is belief without evidence). And I don't know many believers who do. The believer sees evidence for God in everything. The unbeliever does not. That's the difference. It's not a question of evidence, but an interpretation of the evidence. And in regards to the the placebo effect, it doesn't matter how the subject obtains the belief in the effectiveness of the treatment. It only matters that he has it. And you have failed to provide a rationale for why it does matter.
But the point is that they really believe. And that's all that is required!
Just like the individuals who are conned or duped by the physicians who employ the placebo effect?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, I am not conflating the two. And definition 2 is not incompatible with definition 1. Obviously, definition 1 qualifies as a definition of faith. If it did not, then it would not be in the dictionary! And more to the point, this is the very faith that I am referring to. Also, this qualifies as religious faith because there are definitely religions that promote this kind of faith (e.g. Christianity). Ask any born-again Christian if he has "complete confidence or trust in someone or something." I will guarantee you that he will say "yes!" Ask a Christian Scientist if he believes in the healing power of faith and of the mind. I guarantee he will say "yes!"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You haven't provided any medical data to support your argument. And even if you did, you would not be qualified to interpret the medical data (I'm simply using your own argument against you. By the way, I wasn't interpreting the medical data. I was simply stating the conclusions of medical researchers). Also, your argument is tantamount to saying that antidepressant drugs are no better than placebos. Why? Because your argument implies that antidepressant drugs cannot cure depression. Nothing cures depression. Right?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I discussed the nocebo effect in the OP of this thread. If you had actually bothered to read it, then you would not have embarrassed yourself with your foregoing post.
Faith is a positive belief, not a negative one. If I have faith in someone or something, then I trust in that individual or in that thing. (Certainly, I can misplace my faith. But faith itself is a positive belief.) This is not difficult to grasp and I suspect you really do comprehend it. Unfortunately, you are hell-bent on playing semantical games in order to save face from admitting the power of faith.
I know. It's called free will. And our first-person perpsective furnishes us with compelling evidence that the mind is separate from the body. But wait, I have already argued this point in other threads. Therefore, I see no reason to rehash an argument I have already won.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. However, I never argued that cultivating faith (or a positive mental attitude) was easy.
Yes and you have just made it by arguing for the power of belief (i.e. positive beliefs can lead to healings and negative beliefs to illnesses). That's basically the point I made in the OP of this thread! LOL
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No need to get so prissy about it. I only asked so as not to make any assumptions about you.
Ah, I see the problem. This is where it all gets really annoying and semantic. The word faith has a strong religous connotation that simply doesn't belong in any scientific definition.
Are you seriously suggesting that any person in those trials never ever had a real positive and effective experience with doctors and medicine ?
For a placebo-effect to be triggered, there would always have to be prior evidence of the effectiveness of doctors and medicine. You're asking me to imagine someone who believes in doctors and medicine without ever having had a real and positive experience with either ? Why would that person believe and trust if he lacked the evidence ? It just makes no sense at all. He simply wouldn't have the motivation to do so.
He has his prior experience with the very real effectiveness of doctors and medicine. That's all that's needed to trigger the conditioned response we call the placebo efffect.
It doesn't, that's the whole point. Anyway, that's my question. Give it back !
The issue was already obfuscated when I got here. This is just about figuring out how your brain works.
The patient would have to have experienced being effectively treated by doctors and medicine.
So you did. Thanks.
Annoying, isn't it ? Gee, I wonder where I picked that up.
If there are people who believe in the power of a witch-doctor, then they do so because he gets real results. If he just went around waving his wand about the place without any real and positive results, then he wouldn't be a witch-doctor, would he ? He'd be the village idiot.
Yeah, I guessed as much. If I ask you for evidence of your belief, you're going to link me to one of your 1000+ threads, aren't you ?
All depends on what they believe, I suppose. It's very hard to find out if people really believe something, or if they're just all talk.
Fortunately, in this case, it's really quite easy. Just answer the following question : If your life was on the line, would you choose faith healing over conventional treatment ? Just checking to see if you really believe that faith heals.
We only have their word for that. That's not proof.
Yup. That's why unbelievers don't get killed by faith healers. Just one of the many advantages.
You start out with something you have no proof of, and then you work it into the interpretation of the evidence you do have ? That's a lame trick. I'm telling you, people are gonna catch on to that sooner or later.
How can the subject obtain belief in the effectiveness of the treatment if he didn't actually experience effective treatment ever before ? Like I said, it just doesn't work.
How is that even an issue here ? Like I said, every single person in the trials mentioned in your OP has already experienced being healed by doctors and medicine.
They say they really believe. What that actually means is another matter entirely.
No, because the doctors earned the belief of the patients by actually curing them. Facts come first. Belief in those facts comes second.
Really? Because you're making an argument with (what I believe to be) a flawed premise. If you can't even speak for the validity of your example, as all your other attempts to provide evidence have been refuted, how can you expect anyone to take your argument seriously? This applies directly to the example you gave in your post, how could it possibly not pertain?
Whoever compared you to the writing in a bathroom stall was spot on.
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
Neither have you. You're arguing that faith heals, but all your data supports is that the placebo-effect exists.
Btw, guess what supports my data ? Reality. Have you found a psychiatrist who can guarantee his treatment is a 100% succesful ? Heck, have you even found one who can claim a single complete succes, and can he tell you exactly how he did it, so the treatment can be used on other patients as well, just as effectively ? No and no.
Guess what : I know people who are.
Anyways, you're the one doing the interpreting. Didn't you read the OP ?
Oh, you're so sneaky !
Oh really ? I thought your conclusion was that "faith heals" ? Where in the trial results does it say that ?
And even if they used those words, their definition of them wouldn't match yours. When they say "heal" for example, an experienced doctor would know that doesn't necessarily mean the symptoms won't return. There are too many nuances you would have no way of understanding the significance of.
So I'm sorry, but the argument still stands. And unless you're going to produce a medical degree, it still completely destroys your claim that "faith heals".
I said they can't cure it, I didn't say they can't keep the symptoms from getting out of control, wich is something entirely different. The drugs are still more effective at doing that than the placebos, because they have certain effects that placebos can't duplicate. For example, some antidepressants will dull the emotions of the patient to the point where the depression becomes bearable.
And btw, it's not just an argument, it's also a fact. Why not step out into the real word and check it ?