Religion is Placebo

[Mr.Badham]

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.

[AquinasD]

That depends. Is there empirical evidence for your primary assumptions?

You seem to be seriously conceptually confused. Who said my beliefs are assumptions? And what concern is it of yours that there exist empirical evidence for all of my beliefs? I seriously doubt there exists empirical evidence for all of your beliefs; in fact, it is only possible if you have no beliefs.

[David 2.0]

I understand the point, and with a minimal definition of the word placebo, tend to agree somewhat.

So..
Just as thought, perhaps, what we have here does not meet a strict definition of the placebo effect...
I think it might be a combination of effects.


The truth is over rated and humans don't seem to be bound by it.

Which is to say that I have met beautiful, honest, functional people...contributing members of society, that IMO were nuttier than a fruit cake.
Somehow it just worked for them.
Crazy beliefs and all.
(In fact, I have not always been this enlightened, and yet here I sit. )

For example...
I have a friend that has some peculiar beliefs about rocks and crystals, and the like.

Part of this belief involves "recharging" the rocks periodical in the son.(sun )
Apparently they wear out, effecting her well being.

If she feels glum, her rocks need twenty minutes in the sun.(son )

Of course it doesn't matter that everyone knows rocks and crystals are formed underground and prefer the dark.

Basic logic tells us, if anything, a crystal needs some sunscreen to recharge?
Bury me now, put me back in my home!

Which is to say, she is nuttier than a fruit cake and any effects she receives from putting warm sun crystals on her body is a placebo.

Rocks don't do squat, outside of roll!

But to me that seems like a simple approach.
Perhaps there is an "element" of placebo effect in her underlying belief system, but, there is actual effect as well.


Rocks and crystals are pretty. Looking at them can be satisfying, even if you are not a rock fan. Stills the mind? Probably lowers cholesterol.

People like to collect, it involves story and possession. Comparison. Identity.

She has books about rock beliefs, which unfortunately, since she reads them, promotes thinking and brain activity, which may be conducive to mental health?

The sun is thought to be good for you. Vitamin D.
My friend is out in the sun, going through her routine, placing the rocks for a recharge....a pleasant task overall?

She is focused on how she feels?
Just in case her crystals need a recharge.
Does she feel drained? Is she sad? How is my health?

The fact that crystals have no effect on states of well being, doesn't mean that she doesn't receive a positive effect of being self aware?

I would not classify these as placebo effects?

Actual effects, perhaps?

To tie it all together...

If God is Love, and this is ones focus, one might see more than a placebo effect in ones life?

Patterning ones life around a good definition of love, will bring actual effects? You will in fact "see" God.

If the creator "manifests" through prayer and meditation, then the effect of the "fictional creator" on ones life may be more than a placebo?

A quiet place to think, be introspective, hope, ask questions...
I could think of worse fates.

What do I know?
2.3 billion christians claim an effect.
Most of the rest, claim a simular effect.

Perhaps its not all placebo?

[Mr.Badham]

The point of my thread isn't whether or not placebo has an effect. It does. I think everyone agrees with that. I haven't heard anyone disagree that there is a placebo effect.

I want my thread to make anyone who feels left out to realize that they weren't. If you're wondering why all these people around you are feeling the spirit of God, and you're not, it's because you are being honest with yourself, and they are allowing themselves to be fooled. They are eating sugar pills.

I look at the columns that read "Comments" and "Views", and I see that this thread has 326 views. It has 21 comments, but probably only 5 or 6 commenters. That means about 95% of the people reading this are tourists. Maybe they're the "Uneducated Christians" I keep hearing about, but never get to talk to. They are the ones I'm talking to.

It's the people looking for the tiniest of nudges, to push them a little farther. An answer to the question; "How come I don't feel it?"

The answer is this; You don't feel it because it doesn't exist.

The placebo effect does exist. Every medicine that we have today is tested against placebo. Read up on placebo, there are mountains of research. Placebo will explain everything from the miracle healings you see on TV to people speaking in tongues.

[Goat]

That depends. Is there empirical evidence for your primary assumptions?

You seem to be seriously conceptually confused. Who said my beliefs are assumptions? And what concern is it of yours that there exist empirical evidence for all of my beliefs? I seriously doubt there exists empirical evidence for all of your beliefs; in fact, it is only possible if you have no beliefs.

All beliefs are based on assumptions at some level... and from these assumptions, structures get built.

If you don't have any empirical evidence for the basis of your beliefs, then how can you justify even to yourself the truth of your conclusions?'

In my opinion, understanding what ones primary assumptions are is the first step to self awareness.

[Furrowed Brow]

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).

If this is true and there is no God then the only possible reason logical rigour would have intrinsic merit is if there were a God and this is what God wished. The the effort to ensure arguments are valid and the time taken to avoid logical fallacy having no intrinsic merit without God. In the absence of God it would seem that the only reason to maintain 2+ 2 = 4 would be that it is better to have correct account keeping than false accounts. But if there were some pragmatic advantage to insist 2 + 2 = 5 then 2 + 2 = 5 is made true. Does the world really steer so badly off course if there is no God. Is that how you see it?

I think it is still possible to find intrinsic merit in thinking straight if there is no God. I am certain there is no God. I do my best to think straight and try only to form valid arguments in which only truth follows from truth because I think it is valuable to do so. I often fall short but I still see the value in trying. How do you explain this?

[EduChris]

...In the absence of God it would seem that the only reason to maintain 2+ 2 = 4 would be that it is better to have correct account keeping than false accounts. But if there were some pragmatic advantage to insist 2 + 2 = 5 then 2 + 2 = 5 is made true. Does the world really steer so badly off course if there is no God...

Given non-theism, everything ultimately devolves into pragmatics. If it somehow worked out that "2 + 2 = 5" allowed us to build stronger bridges, taller skyscrapers, better computers, and more powerful weapon systems, then the true but useless logic of "2 + 2 = 4" would quickly go out the window.

...I do my best to think straight and try only to form valid arguments in which only truth follows from truth...

Given our common human condition, we necessarily must construct our "truths" from some initial set of unprovable assumptions.

...because I think it is valuable to do so...

Please explain the difference between "It is valuable to do so" and "It is pragmatically useful to do so." If you really value truth in itself, for its own sake and not for any pragmatic advantage it might give you, then you have found God, for God is Truth (and Love, and Wisdom, and Joy).

...I am certain there is no God...

Our common human condition allows us only two indisputable truth statements:

1) Thoughts are occurring

2) Nothing else can be known with certainty

In other words, our common human condition doesn't allow us certainty on matters such as God. So you do not have "certainty" at all; instead, you have a very strong "belief" which is delusional at worst, confused at best.

...How do you explain this?

As you say, you "often fall short."

[EduChris]

...I want my thread to make anyone who feels left out to realize that they weren't. If you're wondering why all these people around you are feeling the spirit of God, and you're not, it's because you are being honest with yourself, and they are allowing themselves to be fooled. They are eating sugar pills...

This reminds me of Aesop's fable about the fox and the grapes.

It is true that large numbers of people (particularly in contemporary post-Christian Western culture) don't seem to sense any "connect" with God. This lack of "perceived connection" is the fact, and you have chosen to interpret the fact by rationalizing that there is no real connection.

For myself, I interpret the same fact in a quite different manner. Our culture has become anesthetized by entertainment. We have become addicted to technology to the point of idolizing it, but we have lost our connection to anything beyond our immediate comfort and pleasure. Most of us do occasionally experience God, but we have no larger cognitive framework for interpreting these Divine encounters.

For example, I sense God's presence in the laughter of my children, in music, in worship, and even funerals. My theistic framework allows me to interpret these mystical experiences as God's presence. But if science and pleasure were my only "gods," then I wouldn't be able to differentiate between a true Divine encounter and the emotional thrill of the next episode of American Idol.

[Furrowed Brow]

Given non-theism, everything ultimately devolves into pragmatics. If it somehow worked out that "2 + 2 = 5" allowed us to build stronger bridges, taller skyscrapers, better computers, and more powerful weapon systems, then the true but useless logic of "2 + 2 = 4" would quickly go out the window.

If 2 + 2 = 5 meant stronger bridges then we would use 2 + 2 = 5 to build bridges. But for those who prefer to count straight the question would then be why is the correct math so useless. This would be the pressing concern and it is a problem that would not quickly go away for those motivated to try and think clearly.

Given our common human condition, we necessarily must construct our "truths" from some initial set of unprovable assumptions.

This is true. It is possible to be completely sceptical about everything and anything. So I guess no assumption is truly safe. Descartes came up with the cogito, maybe I think therefore I am is certain. I cant prove I am not a brain in a vat, or I am not living in a matrix, or that Descartes demon is not constructing the world around me and pulling the strings, but some assumptions are more extravagant than others. Getting on with life on the assumption my world is not an illusory matrix is a minimal stance for negotiating what I do experience. Similarly there is no need to invoke God pulling the strings so to speak. The God hypothesis posits something about the world by invoking an additional ingredient (or cook if you prefer). This seems a bigger assumption. The non-God hypothesis might be taken several ways. It might be taken in the weaker sense that no hypothesis is formed, just as most folk do not spend time considering whether their world is an illusion. In this sense Non-God is a non idea or an irrelevance. Then there are the ignostic thinkers who would say the concept of God is meaningless (not true or false), and then there are the folk who would say the God hypothesis is irrelevant because it cannot be proved or evidenced, and then there would be folk who would say the God hypothesis is simply just not true.

Please explain the difference between "It is valuable to do so" and "It is pragmatically useful to do so."

To argue validly and avoid logical fallacy and think straight is Id say valuable for its own sake and worth preserving despite the potential to offend, leave oneself isolated or ostracised or pitted against common opinion or maybe even out of a job.

Our common human condition allows us only two indisputable truth statements:

1) Thoughts are occurring

2) Nothing else can be known with certainty

Well yes, you have screwed it down even tighter than Descartes.

In other words, our common human condition doesn't allow us certainty on matters such as God. So you do not have "certainty" at all; instead, you have a very strong "belief"

Nah...Im certain. Its an attitude, maybe feeling is better, whatever it is it is a constant to live by. Where I am certain on this it is not based it on our common human condition. Those "thoughts are occuring" have their own hue and sensibility not commonly shared with others. Much like my personal aversion to rubbing cotton wool the idea of God just feels all....bhrrrrrhh.

...which is delusional at worst, confused at best.

It would be delusional if I thought it was based on rational thought. I have never argued this. However for any argument I do form I always try my best to make sure it is valid and free of fallacy and I am duty bound to accept correction where shown to fall short.

...How do you explain this?

As you say, you "often fall short."

Touch. But this does not meaningfully answer the question. In the light of there being no God how do you explain the possibility of value systems that hold certain things to be of intrinsic value regardless of the pragmatic advantages without saying that there is no such thing or begging the question by stating they must really issue from God.

[EduChris]

...In the light of there being no God how do you explain the possibility of value systems that hold certain things to be of intrinsic value regardless of the pragmatic advantages without saying that there is no such thing or begging the question by stating they must really issue from God.

Firstly, I would question your very ability to know what "truth" is. Humans cannot know truth, and so what we do is work with our assumptions and build up conceptual frameworks that allow us to categorize things in some way that seems appropriate to us.

When you say you prefer to stick with truth for truth's own sake, what you are really saying is that it is easier for you to "buck common opinion" than revise your framework; thus, you imagine yourself to be sticking to the "truth" despite any prima-facia pragmatic disadvantages, but you still have the deeper pragmatic goal of maintaining your current conceptual framework as opposed to revising it.

Secondly, I would say that you have essentially set up your conceptual framework to be your "God," your object of ultimate concern. Humans really cannot do without "god" because they cannot help but maintain something as their primary, highest allegiance.

In your case, I would say you have chosen your "God" well--you have "truth," and Christians also believe that God is truth. However, I just finished watching the movie, The Wrestler, and I came away with the feeling that sometimes we need more than truth.

The truth is, sometimes we are like the wrestler; sometimes we need grace.

[Mr.Badham]

For example, I sense God's presence in the laughter of my children, in music, in worship, and even funerals. My theistic framework allows me to interpret these mystical experiences as God's presence. But if science and pleasure were my only "gods," then I wouldn't be able to differentiate between a true Divine encounter and the emotional thrill of the next episode of American Idol.

You've just crystallized my thread eloquently. Everything you've mentioned is what I meant by placebo. I feel sad that you cannot simply enjoy your child's laughter without placing some extra meaning to it. It's as though you feel your child's laughter in and of itself is lacking something.

I think what you've given is a caricature of religion. A stereotype. Like the little green men that come from outer space, with the tiny bodies and great big head and eyes. You've simply repeated what you've heard others say. Yes, hearing your children laugh is wonderful and great and makes you feel good. But your indoctrination is complete, your conditioning so deep, that you cannot enjoy the simplest of pleasures without attributing it something else.

I shake my head whenever someone tells me they see god in a garden of roses, or a sunrise, and then curse when they step in a pile of dog crap. If god is everywhere and you are aware of him, then he too will be stuck in the treads of your shoe.