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.

[Confused]

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.

Moderator Warning

What I have highlighted in red is inflammatory at best. It serves no place in a civil debate forum. It contributes no substance to the debate. If you cannot make your posts relevant while remaining civil, please refrain from commenting at all.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[EduChris]

...You've simply repeated what you've heard others say...your indoctrination is complete, your conditioning so deep, that you cannot enjoy the simplest of pleasures without attributing it something else...

Pretty much everyone can have fun drawing stick figures and doing paint-by-numbers. But is that all there is to art? We have classes in art appreciation, art technique, art theory, and art history. Is this "indoctrination," or is it education?

I was an adult convert into Christianity. I know what life is like without any spiritual dimension--it's not without its joys and pleasures--but the spiritual dimension provides context and clarity and deeper joy than anything I knew before. I can see why some would rationalize this as a "placebo effect," but why should I trust their judgement over my own?

[Furrowed Brow]

Firstly, I would question your very ability to know what "truth" is.

Heres a simple Truth of which I am certain and of which you can be more than reasonably sure. This post was typed using Furrowed Brows DC&R account. Do you doubt either of our abilities to discern the truth in this matter.

Humans cannot know truth,

Yes we can. 2 +2 = 4 is true and we both know it., some arguments are valid and others are invalid. It is possible to tell the difference.

...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.

This is largely true. You seem to think it comes down to pragmatics if there is no God, I think it comes down to rigour and logic.

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;

Im all for bucking common opinion so long as argument remains valid.

...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.

I have one optimal conceptual framework viz., valid argument. I feel I have let myself down whenever I say anything invalid

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.

You are welcome to define God anyway you wish. I do not think there is any pressing reason to define God as encompassing everyone's primary and 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.

I have absolutely no idea what it means to say God is truth. I dont think we are using the word truth in anything like the same way.

[AquinasD]

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

I am not sure that assumptions are necessary. I think our grounding beliefs can be deductively understood and defined.

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?'

I would ask the same of you. This thesis of 'evidentialism' cannot have evidence in its favor, at least not without embarking on an infinite regress of pieces of evidence. You could "assume" it to be true if you want, but the problem with assumptions is that you can't be sure they even form meaningful propositions. But then, if you were to plumb their depths to discover if they are meaningful, then you would also be getting to basic truths and wouldn't require assumptions.

[AquinasD]

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.

Are you questioning the whole endeavor of seeking existential significance?

I have come to the understanding that everything I perceive is the act of God's creation. This gives me a certain kind of peace that I did not have before I understood this. Should I shirk any sort of existential placement that my understanding can give me? A person who has come to have this kind of peace, if they were to lose it, would they not also perceive how less peaceful, or meaningful, their existence was before such a type of understanding?

Here is an aesthetickal example.

I have always enjoyed the music of Beethoven, since even before I could play an instrument. However, as I became better at playing my own instrument (trumpet, for the curious) I could better appreciate just what is going on in his music. I can recognize that while before I was perfectly justified in appreciating his music, I can also recognize that my current appreciation of his music is much deeper and sophisticated; I would not wish to lose this deeper appreciation even if I knew I might still appreciate it at a lesser level.

If I can appreciate Beethoven's music at a deeper level, shouldn't I do so?

Or do you think that those who can appreciate fine art ought to stick to more basic offerings? Ought the wine connoisseur to drink only Franzia and never a Bordeaux? Kincaid over Monet? John Williams over Chopin?

[Goat]

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

I am not sure that assumptions are necessary. I think our grounding beliefs can be deductively understood and defined.

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?'

I would ask the same of you. This thesis of 'evidentialism' cannot have evidence in its favor, at least not without embarking on an infinite regress of pieces of evidence. You could "assume" it to be true if you want, but the problem with assumptions is that you can't be sure they even form meaningful propositions. But then, if you were to plumb their depths to discover if they are meaningful, then you would also be getting to basic truths and wouldn't require assumptions.

I would called it 'Empiricalism', and the reason it has evidence in it's favor is that IT WORKS, in real life applications, to discover new and wonderful things about the world around us. It is not the only thing that is important, but it is when it comes to claims about the physical world. It does not deal with issues that exist strictly in the noosphere, but it does deal with such issues about reality. Is it 100%?? No.. because knowledge is imperfect. However, without having empirical evidence on how the world operates, we would not have been able to design computers, GPS, planes, electric lines, light bulbs, or flush toilets.

[AquinasD]

I would called it 'Empiricalism', and the reason it has evidence in it's favor is that IT WORKS, in real life applications, to discover new and wonderful things about the world around us. It is not the only thing that is important, but it is when it comes to claims about the physical world. It does not deal with issues that exist strictly in the noosphere, but it does deal with such issues about reality. Is it 100%?? No.. because knowledge is imperfect. However, without having empirical evidence on how the world operates, we would not have been able to design computers, GPS, planes, electric lines, light bulbs, or flush toilets.

But are we speaking of computers, GPS, planes, electric lines, light bulbs, or flush toilets? No.

Why should we expect there to be any relevant empirical evidence in this case?

[Goat]

I would called it 'Empiricalism', and the reason it has evidence in it's favor is that IT WORKS, in real life applications, to discover new and wonderful things about the world around us. It is not the only thing that is important, but it is when it comes to claims about the physical world. It does not deal with issues that exist strictly in the noosphere, but it does deal with such issues about reality. Is it 100%?? No.. because knowledge is imperfect. However, without having empirical evidence on how the world operates, we would not have been able to design computers, GPS, planes, electric lines, light bulbs, or flush toilets.

But are we speaking of computers, GPS, planes, electric lines, light bulbs, or flush toilets? No.

Why should we expect there to be any relevant empirical evidence in this case?

It makes a truth claim.. as if it is truth. I personally don't expect empirical evidence, because I believe that the proposition is false, based on the fact no one is able to produce evidence it is true. In absence of any evidence for a proposition, it is parsimonious to tentatively reject the accuracy of that proposition.

Since various religions make conflicting claims that none of them are in evidence, it is a reasonable and rational conclusion to come to that none of them are correct.

If you can demonstrate the truth (and not just present arguments that make unprovable and unreasonable assumptions), I would be more than happy to examine it.

Defining things into place does not show the truth value of those definitions.

[AquinasD]

It makes a truth claim.. as if it is truth. I personally don't expect empirical evidence, because I believe that the proposition is false, based on the fact no one is able to produce evidence it is true. In absence of any evidence for a proposition, it is parsimonious to tentatively reject the accuracy of that proposition.

Do you think it is true that truth claims require empirical evidence? Would you say that your proposition here about truth claims and empirical evidence is itself a truth claim? Is there any empirical evidence in its favor?

In that case, it would be parsimonious to reject the accuracy of your proposition. It is self-defeating.

[Goat]

It makes a truth claim.. as if it is truth. I personally don't expect empirical evidence, because I believe that the proposition is false, based on the fact no one is able to produce evidence it is true. In absence of any evidence for a proposition, it is parsimonious to tentatively reject the accuracy of that proposition.

Do you think it is true that truth claims require empirical evidence? Would you say that your proposition here about truth claims and empirical evidence is itself a truth claim? Is there any empirical evidence in its favor?

In that case, it would be parsimonious to reject the accuracy of your proposition. It is self-defeating.

Let me modify that statement for clarity. It makes a truth claim about the physical and objective world. .... the for the physical and objective world 'god is a necessary being'.

Not only that.. it statement an opinion as if was fact.. and facts should be able to be verified.