Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[delphonso]

Placebo in conjunction with regular treatment can be 'effective' for the same reason, even for things outside the brain's subjectivity:

You've had a bacterial infection and must take an antibiotic 3 times a day.  A study researches the beneficial effects of 'chemical X' on patients taking antibiotics.

3 groups are studied: average outcomes of patients on said antibiotics with said infection, a placebo group (still on antibiotics), and the test group (antibiotics and chemical X).

The placebo group will likely fair better than average, because they are getting additional attention and care, plus reminders to actually take the antibiotic 3 times a day (while also participating in the study, taking Chemical X [but actually a placebo]).

[Strongpoint]

Placebo is not magic. It is not "You can will things into existence" or "if you believe something hard enough it becomes real." or "You change future events using incantations" aka prayers

We don't fully know how our mind can influence other parts of our body (like the immune system) but there is nothing weird that one part of the system influences other parts of the system.

[jipehog]

So being given sham treatments might improve how people experience their condition (which in turn likely aids healing!), but it won't actively help the underlying issue.

That not a very holistic approach:

Migraines, joint pain, arthritis, asthma, high blood pressure, and depression are some disease conditions that are more sensitive to the placebo effect. It is a complex phenomenon with several underlying psychological and neurobiological mechanisms.

And I believe there are far greater effects in long term recovery. For anecdotal example is my mother, she fell and broke her leg in really bad way, luckily the surgery went flawlessly (the tape was reviewed by family friend surgeon) and was told that next few month of recovery would determine whether she will retain full function or suffer mobility impairment and pain. She always had strong will and went through the daily painful exercises like chump and finished early. Lets just say that my father is more of the whinner type that goes like a zombie after even mild cold, I have no doubt that if it was him, he would be still struggling in after 3 month and whine about the bolts to date.

Anyway, personally I'd go with something more complex to test like education outcome e.g. who do you think will fare better a school kid that is well informed of the statistical fact that he is likely to end up a looser who achieved nothing in life, or one growing in a supportive environment that always had faith in him?

---

Placebo is not magic. It is not "You can will things into existence" or "if you believe something hard enough it becomes real."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC81284/

[McTraveller]

Stress hormones are a Big Deal, so stress reduction is likely a contributor to the placebo effect.

[Schmaven]

The Placebo effect: (noun) "A beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment."

The reverse is also interesting: psychosomatic illnesses.  Though if the main mechanism involved is stress, then this would likewise explain the otherwise unexplainable onset of those issues.  Stress wreaks havoc on so many systems in the body.

It does seem to me however that our state of mind influences the hormones released throughout our body.  Whether they be stress hormones, or more beneficial ones.  And while there are indeed many ways to influence one's state of mind, faith is a very effective method to generate positive states of mind.  Similar to how the placebo effect appears limited to affecting conditions originating in the mind (pain levels, nausea, stress, psychosomatic eczema, etc.), faith also appears to primarily affect the mind.  Arguably the most controversial aspect of spirituality, faith is by no means the bulk of it.  In my estimation, the primary function of spirituality in general, is to give rise to happiness and inner peace in the practitioner.  The effects of such happiness can then be observed by reductions in stress, and the associated illnesses that are exacerbated by stress.  Also, with increased clarity of mind (from less stress), comes better decision making, among many other benefits. 

Within each spiritual tradition / religion, there are people who practice it well, people who totally misinterpret it to the detriment of others, and people who distort it to fulfill their own selfish agendas.  Science seems to have perhaps less extreme cases of people using it for nefarious purposes, but has many examples throughout history of people misunderstanding it, and harming others from the conclusions they come to.  Many if not all of the criticisms of faith, can likewise be leveled at those who misunderstand and/or misuse science, although I concede perhaps to a far lesser extent globally, and throughout history as well.  People in the past misused and abused religion in terrifying ways, but this does not negate the benefits that spiritual practices do provide; just as unskilled and uninformed science mishaps, or possible nuclear wars, do not discredit the benefits that science can provide.

I don't think there has to be a conflict between science and religion.  Both are valid for different purposes.  Science is for understanding the physical world.  Spirituality is for understanding how to be happy.  (Other valid purposes exist too, and there is overlap.  I oversimplify in order to juxtapose.)

[jipehog]

Btw, how do you define spirituality?

[Schmaven]

Btw, how do you define spirituality?

I'm sure it has many various definitions, and I'm no authority on the matter.  Just posting my musings here for the discussion.

Edit: The first resultant definition in a google search seems good enough.

[Strongpoint]

I don't think there has to be a conflict between science and religion.  Both are valid for different purposes.  Science is for understanding the physical world.  Spirituality is for understanding how to be happy.

No. Spirituality offers no understanding whatsoever. Understanding is achieved by experiments, gathering data, analysis, formulating hypothesis, developing theories and, most importantly, questioning everyone who did all of the above including yourself.  It doesn't matter what you try to understand - the origin of the universe or how to be happy.

Making stuff up and\or believing "holy texts" has nothing to do with understanding.

[Schmaven]

No. Spirituality offers no understanding whatsoever. Understanding is achieved by experiments, gathering data, analysis, formulating hypothesis, developing theories and, most importantly, questioning everyone who did all of the above including yourself.  It doesn't matter what you try to understand - the origin of the universe or how to be happy.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. 

From my perspective, spirituality is an inner science.  There are theories and hypotheses regarding states of mind.  Certain thoughts give rise to certain feelings.  These can be tested, and observed with reliable repeatability to generate patience, love, discipline, lucidity, determinations to sieze the day, overcome anger, indifference, and so forth.  The data is how we feel.  When tested 100s of times, finding consistent results, an understanding that it works develops.  The entire point is to test it ourselves, not to simply take someone's word for it, no matter who they are.  It doesn't matter at all if we know how to be kind if we never apply the methods to actually be kind.  And we'll never know the methods truly work unless we test them ourselves.  The holy texts offer theories and hypotheses we can experiment with.  They're not meant to be just academic knowledge.  Happiness comes from within.

[Strongpoint]

No. Spirituality offers no understanding whatsoever. Understanding is achieved by experiments, gathering data, analysis, formulating hypothesis, developing theories and, most importantly, questioning everyone who did all of the above including yourself.  It doesn't matter what you try to understand - the origin of the universe or how to be happy.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. 

From my perspective, spirituality is an inner science.  There are theories and hypotheses regarding states of mind.  Certain thoughts give rise to certain feelings.  These can be tested, and observed with reliable repeatability to generate patience, love, discipline, lucidity, determinations to sieze the day, overcome anger, indifference, and so forth.  The data is how we feel.  When tested 100s of times, finding consistent results, an understanding that it works develops.  The entire point is to test it ourselves, not to simply take someone's word for it, no matter who they are.  It doesn't matter at all if we know how to be kind if we never apply the methods to actually be kind.  And we'll never know the methods truly work unless we test them ourselves.  The holy texts offer theories and hypotheses we can experiment with.  They're not meant to be just academic knowledge.  Happiness comes from within.

IMO, it sounds like you want to say that spirituality is your own experience which is a weird definition.

Let's say you have a goal... Something simple. Let's say learn to play chess well. How will you do it? Sure, you'll study what other people learned. But you'll still need personal playing experience, you'll still need to do your own tests, and you still need to choose what style of play works for you.

If the goal is more complex, like "becoming happy", "raising decent children", "achieving success in life", etc. The process is the same, just harder.

When learning chess you should prefer learning from people who actually know how to play chess to some random dude from the 17th century who claims that he got a revelation from the God about how to play chess perfectly even if there are some useful advice in his writings.

And when learning how to be happy, how to be contributing member of society, if you are a rational person, you should also look at people who STUDY this stuff not try to extract this from some fiction from a few thousand years ago written by people who considered ethnic cleansing, slavery, and rape to be OK. But yes, you can't learn how to love happily by simply reading an academic book. You need practice, you need your own experience. But it helps to use good and accurate theory when learning by trial and error.

[jipehog]

Btw, how do you define spirituality?

I'm sure it has many various definitions, and I'm no authority on the matter.  Just posting my musings here for the discussion.

Edit: The first resultant definition in a google search seems good enough.

As long as you accept that spirituality and all its advantages can be achieved without adherence to a religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality

[Strongpoint]

Wrong topic

[MaxTheFox]

My pre-conversion self was utterly rotten. You think current me is violent? You never met me then.

[jipehog]

Wrong topic

I disagree, not all spiritual concepts revolve around god or higher power.

My pre-conversion self was utterly rotten. You think current me is violent? You never met me then.

What did that process entail?

[Strongpoint]

Wrong topic

I edited my message after posting in the wrong topic. Should have been more clear)

My pre-conversion self was utterly rotten. You think current me is violent? You never met me then.

You found a welcoming and understanding community and started taking a conscious effort to improve your attitude, right?