Religion is Placebo

Mr.Badham · Post by **Mr.Badham** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:30 pm

Placebo administered through injection is more effective than placebo administered through pill form.

Placebo administered by someone dressed as a doctor is more effective than placebo administered by someone dressed as a nurse.

By that rationale, placebo administered by what you believe to be the creator of the universe could explain any personal experience you have ever had with said creator.

It doesn't matter that an actor dressed like a doctor injected you with a saline solution, you'll feel better. With that said, tell me something that has happened to you personally, that I cannot explain away as placebo.

And here's some homework for you. If you haven't had any experiences with the creator, ask yourself why you believe in him. It might be someone else's experience with placebo.

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:37 am

EduChris wrote: Scenario 1: given the truth of the "God hypothesis," it follows that objective truth has intrinsic value....

False or at least in need of further qualification and an expansion upon the narrow sense of what is meant by God. If there is a God maybe God knows just how relative everything is, uncertainty rules, and that morality is just a shade of grey. For scenario 1 to work God has to be the kind of secure God bounded by the kind of certainties imagined by some theists (most I guess). Scenario 1 boils down to if theists are right to think the existence of God means the presence of objective truth and values then it is right to be a theist who thinks this.

EduChris wrote: Scenario 2: given the non-truth of the "God hypothesis," it follows that truth is relevant only to the extent that it confers pragmatic advantage.

False. This does not follow or at least be show to follow.

Given there is no God truth is relevant as far as some things we say can be true or false. True statements may or may not confer pragmatic advantage, this is besides the point, the relevance is that we can only rigorously (and not accidently) form valid arguments if we have correctly assigned truth values to our statements e.g. The statement a person using Furrowed Brows account typed this post is made true if someone using Furrowed Brows account indeed typed this post and false otherwise.

Truth only confers pragmatic advantage (or not) when it is impossible to discern the facts of the matter. At such times the discourse is objectively meaningless and it is only relevant as far as there is a placebo effect or folk persist regardless.

EduChris wrote:In this case, since you have admitted that the "placebo effect" is real, it follows that theism (as a placebo offering pragmatic advantage) is again preferred over non-theism.

A placebo effect is only preferred by those seeking any positive effect regardless of the cost to intellectual integrity.

EduChris wrote:Thus, theism is the logically preferred option regardless of whether or not it is objectively, ontologically true. Therefore, rational people will be theists.

If there is no God folk who prefer to avoid reality will prefer to be theists.

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:55 am

TheBlackPhilosophy wrote:A man loses a limb..."Oh God help me! Someone! Please!".

Another man walks up..."Here, take this pill." Gives him a placebo.

"ITS NOT HELPING!!!"

Man goes into shock and bleeds out...

[End of "Placebos in place of medicine"]

By your "logic," urology wouldn't count as medicine either...

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:18 am

Furrowed Brow wrote:...Truth only confers pragmatic advantage (or not) when it is impossible to discern the facts of the matter...

Precisely. And we cannot (in our present human condition) discern the fact regarding the God-hypothesis vs. the non-God hypothesis. However, only if the God-hypothesis is true do we have the possibility that truth might have intrinsic value (as opposed to merely pragmatic advantage).

Furrowed Brow wrote:...At such times the discourse is objectively meaningless and it is only relevant as far as there is a placebo effect...

That's a fairly good summary of the state of affairs which would ensue if the non-God hypothesis were true.

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:51 am

Mr.Badham wrote:...As Christian people we're raised to believe in original sin, then we're told we must ask forgiveness from that original sin and to have faith God will forgive us. Then we're told this horrible story of how Jesus died for us, as though it's our fault...

That is perhaps an accurate summary of some claims made by the less educated wing of the Christian church. I don't want to unnecessarily denigrate their lack of education (in many ways such people outdo me in the more important acts of love and kindness) but it is odd that you choose to attack Christians generally on the basis of the poor arguments made by the less educated element within the faith.

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:32 am

Mr.Badham wrote:No one has answered the question. Have you had an experience with the creator that can't be explained away as placebo?...

Why would anyone answer a question that is designed to steer them into the genetic fallacy?

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:32 am

Mr.Badham wrote:No one has answered the question. Have you had an experience with the creator that can't be explained away as placebo?

I know that both placebos and faith work. They make people feel better and that's good.

But there is something more going on in the head of someone who relies on faith.

NOBODY 'relies on faith!"

FAITH is what you show when you rely upon your beliefs. That's why the 'faith without works is dead.." is an important aspect of the thing.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:37 pm

dianaiad wrote:
Mr.Badham wrote:No one has answered the question. Have you had an experience with the creator that can't be explained away as placebo?

I know that both placebos and faith work. They make people feel better and that's good.

But there is something more going on in the head of someone who relies on faith.
NOBODY 'relies on faith!"

FAITH is what you show when you rely upon your beliefs. That's why the 'faith without works is dead.." is an important aspect of the thing.

While I personally will agree 'faith without works is dead', the concept pushed by protestants of 'sola fide' disagrees. Then again, I don't like anything that Martin Luther pushed.

AquinasD · Post by **AquinasD** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:14 pm

My own reason for religion has nought to do with its effects... In fact, I'm not sure what effects it produces in my life, except perhaps a grudging acceptance to attend Mass each weekend or a smattering of guilt about sinful things I do. Then again, I do not have much experience with feelings, so I couldn't tell you what "normal" is, though I do suspect there is no such thing as normative feelings.

I don't see what the OP's post means to establish. Is he saying that people are religious just because "it feels good?" Because I would strongly contest that this is the case. If anything, religion is one of the few causes of the sorrowful feelings I do possess. (At this, I wonder if someone is going to offer atheism to me because "it feels good," but I wonder if this doesn't dis-establish whatever point the OP is trying to make.)

I am religious because there appear to be very good reasons to believe that my religion is true. Are reasoned beliefs themselves a placebo?

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:11 am

Goat wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
Mr.Badham wrote:No one has answered the question. Have you had an experience with the creator that can't be explained away as placebo?

I know that both placebos and faith work. They make people feel better and that's good.

But there is something more going on in the head of someone who relies on faith.
NOBODY 'relies on faith!"

FAITH is what you show when you rely upon your beliefs. That's why the 'faith without works is dead.." is an important aspect of the thing.
While I personally will agree 'faith without works is dead', the concept pushed by protestants of 'sola fide' disagrees. Then again, I don't like anything that Martin Luther pushed.

Don't look now, but, er...I don't represent Protestant beliefs.

Or Orthodox ones, either, come to think of it.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:58 am

AquinasD wrote:My own reason for religion has nought to do with its effects... In fact, I'm not sure what effects it produces in my life, except perhaps a grudging acceptance to attend Mass each weekend or a smattering of guilt about sinful things I do. Then again, I do not have much experience with feelings, so I couldn't tell you what "normal" is, though I do suspect there is no such thing as normative feelings.

I don't see what the OP's post means to establish. Is he saying that people are religious just because "it feels good?" Because I would strongly contest that this is the case. If anything, religion is one of the few causes of the sorrowful feelings I do possess. (At this, I wonder if someone is going to offer atheism to me because "it feels good," but I wonder if this doesn't dis-establish whatever point the OP is trying to make.)

I am religious because there appear to be very good reasons to believe that my religion is true. Are reasoned beliefs themselves a placebo?

That depends. Is there empirical evidence for your primary assumptions? If yes, then the 'reasoned beliefs' might or might not be a placebo. If no, then yes, those 'reasoned beliefs' are a placebo.

Can the 'reasoned beliefs' be empirically tested? If no, then those 'reasoned beliefs' belong to the noosphere, and are most likely only have personal value.

Do those 'reasoned beliefs' influence your interactions with society? Then , those metaphyiscal concepts can be a concern to society.. for good or for ill.