Of course there are dozens and dozens of studies showing that acupuncture is associated with improved health outcomes. It's only when they're reviewed in detail and analyzed in bulk that reviewers like Cochrane were able to conclude there wasn't any good evidence supporting its use--not that it doesn't work, mind you, only that we don't know. You paper opens with a listing of papers suggesting a link between religiosity and health which readers may find an interesting resource (ask; there's almost 20).
The paper does go on to acknowledge the limitations of the studies, most notably that powerful bias is inherent. For example:
"Other studies have indicated that increased attendance at religious services is associated with reduced incidence of stroke ... which is likely related to the better health habits of persons who regularly attend church. Similarly, increased attendance at religious services has been shown to be associated with better overall physical functioning for individuals who sustained a first-time stroke ... which may be attributable to the fact that individuals with better physical functioning are better able to attend religious services (and not that attendance at religious services leads to better physical functioning)." In another section the authors note links to congregational support and mental health, that worse health promotes praying, and negative religious coping increases pain and mental health problems.
In other words, an association exists between the two because of confounders and the nonrandomized design. One may also find that attendance at a gas station is associated with a better outcome because the less disabled people could still drive. And the fact that Mormons probably have less cirrhosis because they avoid drinking won't mean I need to become a Mormon to enjoy that reduced risk. And there's negative research:
"Matheis, Tulsky, and Matheis (2006) ... reported that “existential spirituality” (i.e., defined as a worldview in which individuals search for purpose and meaning in their lives) was significantly related to life satisfaction, general health, and social quality of life. In contrast, “religious spirituality” (i.e., defined as a relationship with a higher power) was not found to be a predictor of any outcomes in any of the models. These results suggest that nonreligious beliefs (i.e., existential worldview) may be more important in relating to health than religious beliefs for persons with SCI." (...) In general, the results indicated that religion did not promote better recovery or adjustment, although the authors reported it may have been a source of consolation for some patients with limited recovery. In addition, negative religious coping and anger with God were found to be risk factors for poor recovery."
No matter what, *I* will never be angry with God--risk avoided. Anyhoo, the paper goes on to describe that religion research commonly fails to adequately define what religion is, and makes an effort to use a standardized scale as a corrective feature. But the scale is vague, and I'd score high on some measures (forgiveness, inner peace/harmony). It asks about positive congregational support but not lack of support, focusing instead on whether fellow churchgoers ask too much of the paralyzed patients or blame them (is this common?).
Correlation with health measures is displayed in a chart with THIRTY entries showing strength of correlation; 5 were statistically significant (remember the acupuncture critique about multiple comparisons increasing the risk of false positives? No mention of the bonferroni correction). Skipping to conclusions, we see the authors found that positive spiritual experiences are associated with better health, negative spiritual experiences are associated with poorer health, and congregational support didn't matter. Religious PRACTICES had no impact. How to interpret all of this?
Well, these are just associations. Just like coffee can be associated with lung cancer, because smokers commonly drink it, doesn't mean there is causation. If there is causation, the direction is unclear. We can just as easily state the findings as "Good health is associated with positive spiritual experiences." In other words, when you feel good, you feel better about the powers in charge because you believe He or they or whomever is responsible. This is nothing more than finding that positive health correlates with positive attitude among people who view the world through a religious lens. Does this make religion, "useful"? Not really, because it doesn't suggest that religion makes health better; it just as much suggests health makes religion better (5 of 30 tests). And it certainly presents no evidence that acquiring religion helps anyone, nor could such an intervention ever succeed, not would the recommendations be ethical (anymore than counseling people to give it up). In fact, as far as concrete steps (getting support, doing something religious), the study was completely negative. We've learned that health affects attitude among religious people. And were these findings robust?
"The hierarchical regressions indicated that none of the BMMRS scales significantly predicted physical or mental health outcomes after considering the impact of demographic variables."
That's discussed under "limitations" but it belongs in "results."
In summary, if this shows that religion is "useful," there is no question that a chi based, acupuncture driven technique for condition X is also useful. Data quality is similar, with the exception there are negative reviews on acupuncture because interventional studies were undertaken! And I bet a study of chi belief scales would show a correlation between positive chi experiences and health and vice versa just like the present study. And we already know that acupuncture is useful as placebo. I've already indicated here that I can embrace that aspect of it, utilize it effectively, trust it where standard medical therapies are lacking--and still know it's a placebo.
Remembering the Barefoot Doctors
Moderator: Available
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567
There's a downer:
BACKGROUND: Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality. RESULTS: In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.
From the accompanying editorial:
"The assumption imbedded in the analysis plan was that blinded prayer would be effective and unblinded prayer even more effective, with expected complication rates of 50% in the standard care group, 40% in the blinded prayer group, and 30% in the unblinded prayer group—exactly the opposite of what was actually observed. In the interpretation of obviously counterintuitive findings as “what may have been chance,” the STEP investigators have allowed cultural presumption to undermine scientific objectivity." --Mitchell W. Krucoff MD, FACC, , Suzanne W. Crater RN, ANP-C and Kerry L. Lee PhD. Duke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC.
Letters to the editor alerted me of the following trials showing possible harm from prayer:
4 R.F. Palmer, D. Katerndahl and J. Morgan-Kidd, A randomized trial of the effects of remote intercessory prayer: interactions with personal beliefs on problem-specific outcomes and functional status, J Altern Complement Med 10 (2004), pp. 443–448.
5 S.R. Walker, J.S. Tonigan and W.R. Miller et al., Intercessory prayer in the treatment of alcohol abuse and dependence: a pilot investigation, Altern Ther Health Med 3 (1997), pp. 79–86. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (43)
And also found that differences in baseline condition and followup may have caused the poorer outcomes (skolnick). Another suggested that prayer failed because the prayers weren't qualified in the John 3:3 believer sense, and that God can't be tested because of Luke 4:12. Hard to refute, but reminds us of the principle that itf it can't be studied, it's not a useful theory.
There's a downer:
BACKGROUND: Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality. RESULTS: In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.
From the accompanying editorial:
"The assumption imbedded in the analysis plan was that blinded prayer would be effective and unblinded prayer even more effective, with expected complication rates of 50% in the standard care group, 40% in the blinded prayer group, and 30% in the unblinded prayer group—exactly the opposite of what was actually observed. In the interpretation of obviously counterintuitive findings as “what may have been chance,” the STEP investigators have allowed cultural presumption to undermine scientific objectivity." --Mitchell W. Krucoff MD, FACC, , Suzanne W. Crater RN, ANP-C and Kerry L. Lee PhD. Duke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC.
Letters to the editor alerted me of the following trials showing possible harm from prayer:
4 R.F. Palmer, D. Katerndahl and J. Morgan-Kidd, A randomized trial of the effects of remote intercessory prayer: interactions with personal beliefs on problem-specific outcomes and functional status, J Altern Complement Med 10 (2004), pp. 443–448.
5 S.R. Walker, J.S. Tonigan and W.R. Miller et al., Intercessory prayer in the treatment of alcohol abuse and dependence: a pilot investigation, Altern Ther Health Med 3 (1997), pp. 79–86. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (43)
And also found that differences in baseline condition and followup may have caused the poorer outcomes (skolnick). Another suggested that prayer failed because the prayers weren't qualified in the John 3:3 believer sense, and that God can't be tested because of Luke 4:12. Hard to refute, but reminds us of the principle that itf it can't be studied, it's not a useful theory.
--Ian
-
f.Channell
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Valhalla
How is Religion measurable or concrete? Who's religion?
How is it different from Chi?
Please explain that one Bill.
F.
How is it different from Chi?
Please explain that one Bill.
F.
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
www.hinghamkarate.com
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I can keep going on this, Ian.
Ann Pharmacother. 2001 Mar;35(3):352-9.
Religion and coping with serious medical illness.
Koenig HG, Larson DB, Larson SS.
Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. Koenig@geri.duke.edu
OBJECTIVE: To review and discuss some of the research published in the last several decades that has addressed the role that religion plays in helping patients cope with serious medical illness.
DATA SOURCES: Although this is not a systematic review of the literature, it provides a sampling of the studies that have examined the relationship between religious involvement, coping with illness, and health outcomes. This sampling of studies reflects the findings of a much larger systematic review of research (MEDLINE, Current Contents, Psychlit, Soclit, HealthStar, Cancerlit, CINAHL, and others) during the past century that was recently completed by the authors.
DATA EXTRACTION: Epidemiologic studies published in the English-language literature were reviewed and discussed.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A number of well-designed cross-sectional and prospective studies have examined the relationship between religious beliefs and activities and adaptation to physical illness in patients with general medical conditions, neurologic disorders, heart disease, renal failure, AIDS, and a host of other physical disorders. This review demonstrates the widespread use of religion in coping with medical illness and provides circumstantial evidence for the possible benefits of this lifestyle factor.
CONCLUSIONS: When people become physically ill, many rely heavily on religious beliefs and practices to relieve stress, retain a sense of control, and maintain hope and their sense of meaning and purpose in life. Religious involvement appears to enable the sick, particularly those with serious and disabling medical illness, to cope better and experience psychological growth from their negative health experiences, rather than be defeated or overcome by them.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2009 Oct;10(8):581-6. Epub 2009 Sep 3.
Religiousness, religious coping, and psychological well-being in nursing home residents.
Scandrett KG, Mitchell SL.
Department of Geriatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. kgscandrett@northwestern.edu
OBJECTIVES: To measure the importance of religion among nursing home residents, describe their use of religious coping strategies, and examine the association between religiousness, religious coping, and psychological well-being. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two nursing facilities in Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred forty cognitively intact to moderately impaired long-stay nursing home residents.
MEASUREMENTS: Subjects rated religion as either "not important," "somewhat important," or "very important." Use of religious coping strategies was measured using the 14-item Brief RCOPE. The outcome measure, psychological well-being, was measured with the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale. Covariates included demographic variables and a measure of social engagement, comorbidity, functional status, and mental status. Linear regression was used to examine the association between religious importance and psychological well-being after adjusting for covariates.
RESULTS: Subjects rated the importance of religion as follows: very important (54%), somewhat important (27%), and not important (19%). The mean score on the Affect Balance Scale was 5.9 +/- 2.1 (SD) (range 2-9). After multivariate adjustment, viewing religion as somewhat or very important (versus not important, P=.0019) and absence of negative religious coping strategies (P=.0083) were associated with better psychological well-being (with higher scores on the Affect Balance Scale) (P=.007).
CONCLUSION: Religion was important to most older residents living in 2 religiously affiliated long-term care facilities. Residents for whom religion was somewhat or very important and who did not use negative religious coping strategies are more likely to have better psychological well-being.
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009 Nov;36(6):664-73.
The geriatric cancer experience at the end of life: testing an adapted model.
Buck HG, Overcash J, McMillan SC.
Hartford Center of Geriatric Nursing Excellence in New Courtland Center for Transitions and Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. buckh@nursing.upenn.edu
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To test an adapted end-of-life conceptual model of the geriatric cancer experience and provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the model for use in practice and research. DESIGN: Nonexperimental and cross-sectional using baseline data collected within 24-72 hours of admission to hospice. SETTING: Two hospices in the southeastern United States.
SAMPLE: 403 hospice homecare patients; 56% were men and 97% were Caucasian with a mean age of 77.7 years.
METHODS: Confirmatory factor analyses using structural equation modeling with AMOS statistical software.
MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Clinical status; physiologic, psychological, and spiritual variables; and quality of life (QOL).
FINDINGS: A three-factor model with QOL as an outcome variable showed that 67% of the variability in QOL is explained by the patient's symptom and spiritual experiences.
CONCLUSIONS: As symptoms and associated severity and distress increase, the patient's QOL decreases. As the spiritual experience increases (the expressed need for inspiration, spiritual activities, and religion), QOL also increases.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The model supports caring for the physical and metaphysical dimensions of the patient's life. It also highlights a need for holistic care inclusive of physical, emotional, and spiritual domains.
Comparing chi and religion is really apples and origins. You'd have a better comparison if you compared chi to say, the soul or some other such concept. Chi, like the soul, is (to some believers) part of a broader cosmology.
Every argument that applies to the efficacy of belief in a soul applies equally to the efficacy of belief in chi. They're both equally valid as things you one can believe in that might make you healthier simply because you believe they will. If you're going to say that believing in Chi is stupid (which, let's face it, is what it comes down to when you refer to people as chisters and say Chi is useless) on scientific grounds, you need to accept the kind of search and replace Ian used to flip it on you.
There are lots of "silly" and "useless" parts of Christianity that you could extract and mock in isolation, and which would never pass anybody's million dollar challenge.
Would you be equally demeaning to people from another culture who took a few elements of judeochristian faith such as prayer and the soul and ran with them? How is that any different from Americans who like to do Feng Shui and believe in chi?
Every argument that applies to the efficacy of belief in a soul applies equally to the efficacy of belief in chi. They're both equally valid as things you one can believe in that might make you healthier simply because you believe they will. If you're going to say that believing in Chi is stupid (which, let's face it, is what it comes down to when you refer to people as chisters and say Chi is useless) on scientific grounds, you need to accept the kind of search and replace Ian used to flip it on you.
There are lots of "silly" and "useless" parts of Christianity that you could extract and mock in isolation, and which would never pass anybody's million dollar challenge.
Would you be equally demeaning to people from another culture who took a few elements of judeochristian faith such as prayer and the soul and ran with them? How is that any different from Americans who like to do Feng Shui and believe in chi?
-
f.Channell
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Valhalla
Since Religion primarily deals with the soul that's what I'm talking about, in relation to the soul.
Not ceremonies etc.....
Especially when people lump it into JudeoChristian which covers so many different faiths the only thing they may commonly share is the concern of the soul or spirit.
Not ceremonies etc.....
Especially when people lump it into JudeoChristian which covers so many different faiths the only thing they may commonly share is the concern of the soul or spirit.
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
www.hinghamkarate.com
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Fred and Justin, I'm not buying it.
I was a member of the Unitarian Universalist church in Charlottesville for the last year I was there. Our minister didn't even believe in God, much less a soul. So once again... No comparison between chi and religion. They have nothing to do with each other.
God? Soul? Something else altogether.
However... The whole concept of "faith" is belief in something unprovable. And FWIW, the religion I was trained in wasn't about praying for material things that you could get on this earth. It is as I defined above
Meanwhile, chi is allegedly some usable power in the here and now. I endured years and years of magic shows where people would show their chi power. Where do you find that kind of BS in religion except for fringe faith healers? If someone wants to paint a broad brush against all religion because some wacko believes something stupid, well - as Chris Rock would say - that's just ignant.
If it keeps Ian up at night worrying that he can't corner me on some belief I don't embrace because I say chi is bullsheet, well that's not my problem. Truth be told, I think Ian isn't giving full disclosure here. He has a lifelong agenda. But again... not my cross to bear.
I know, I know... bad pun.
- Bill
I was a member of the Unitarian Universalist church in Charlottesville for the last year I was there. Our minister didn't even believe in God, much less a soul. So once again... No comparison between chi and religion. They have nothing to do with each other.
God? Soul? Something else altogether.
However... The whole concept of "faith" is belief in something unprovable. And FWIW, the religion I was trained in wasn't about praying for material things that you could get on this earth. It is as I defined above
And no matter how many times Ian wants to redefine it all, that's it. And no more.Bill Glasheen wrote:
Most religions of the world can be summed up with three basic components:
- The Golden Rule
- Dealing with our earthly mortality.
- Concerns about the origin of the Universe
Meanwhile, chi is allegedly some usable power in the here and now. I endured years and years of magic shows where people would show their chi power. Where do you find that kind of BS in religion except for fringe faith healers? If someone wants to paint a broad brush against all religion because some wacko believes something stupid, well - as Chris Rock would say - that's just ignant.
If it keeps Ian up at night worrying that he can't corner me on some belief I don't embrace because I say chi is bullsheet, well that's not my problem. Truth be told, I think Ian isn't giving full disclosure here. He has a lifelong agenda. But again... not my cross to bear.
I know, I know... bad pun.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
To my points...
What Unitarian Universalists Believe
This is kind of the Cliff Notes for UU beliefs. They actually study all the great religions (seven). Individuals can embrace whatever beliefs they want from the study of religions and religiosity.
I'd still be a UU member if I could find a congregation that wasn't so damn politically liberal. Don't ask me why this church attracts so many wealth redistributionists. You'd think they'd have more libertarians among them.
- Bill
What Unitarian Universalists Believe
This is kind of the Cliff Notes for UU beliefs. They actually study all the great religions (seven). Individuals can embrace whatever beliefs they want from the study of religions and religiosity.
I'd still be a UU member if I could find a congregation that wasn't so damn politically liberal. Don't ask me why this church attracts so many wealth redistributionists. You'd think they'd have more libertarians among them.
- Bill
UUs vary a lot. My mother isn't religious, but is a singer, and has always sung in UU choirs, and so I've seen a few different ones. And yeah, UU isn't entirely describable as a social club for liberals, but it's been pretty close, in my experience. That said, if you want one that isn't very liberal, and even has biblical references and talk about God and Jesus, you might try the First Church Unitarian in Templeton, MA. A bit of a commute from VA maybe, but maybe you'd find more libertarians out there.Bill Glasheen wrote: This is kind of the Cliff Notes for UU beliefs.
As for why the Unitarian church attracts what you call "wealth redistributionists", it's probably because of their mission statement "to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person." Nothing inherently liberal about that, but once one stops seeing poor people as just too lazy/stupid/whatever to pull themselves up by the boot straps, it's not a big leap to thinking that it would be kind of nice to help them out. And as we all know, conservatives prefer to have a peasantry to look down on. Just a little Christmas ribbing there for ya.
I don't really understand your position, Bill, and I think that's partly intentional. You say some stuff that's vague, people misinterpret, and then later, we are but young grasshopper, missing the point.
You said that if chi can't be proven or measured or that if we can do as well without, it's useless; I indicate only that I would apply those standards to religion as well.
You're claiming religion is "useful," but citing association studies gets us nowhere, and if someone else cited association studies to establish that TCM was effective or "useful," you'd logically savage them (or let me do it).
The latest twist is that your minister doesn't believe in God or a soul and you're beyond usual definitions. Say that *I* am redefining things all you want, but that's not religion to any religious person I've ever discussed this with (no offense intended to any UU's out there). If we go by your three criteria (and not by the near universal experience of forum readers who associate religion primarily with supernatural beliefs, and primarily the three great monotheisms with some occasional crosscultural deference to Hindus and others), then Dawkins and Hitchens are deeply religious. I'm deeply religious. Religious means anything--then of course it becomes a minimally useful term.
If that's what you mean, many would have just said so at the beginning (perhaps by listing the three criteria and including a note about how you exclude an element not just common but central and essential to most people's religion). To skip over this step when the very word means something different to almost everyone, then to "gotcha" me with your nonsupernatural criteria--I don't understand the point. A better term would have been a belief system or coping system, and would have easily avoided the confusion. You could have also avoided citing 4 studies that deal not with "coping systems" or with deeply felt atheistic ethics structures but rather clearly religious religions. Ones with deities that can't be measured, proven, and that we can accomplish things without, just like chi. Or you could have ventured whether you think the findings apply to other belief systems.
If you're merely saying that deep belief (including in pure particle physics or in the Golden rule, etc) can help us cope with illness or stress, well then, sure. That's a pretty noncontroversial claim. I don't know anyone who would disagree. Case closed?
Meanwhile, I'm not trying to redefine anything. People usually refer to belief in deities, or at least spirits, when they discuss religion. I'm not making this up; let's ask a dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
As for my failure to give "full disclosure," feel free to ask me a specific question. We were misunderstanding each other not long ago when I was talking about the english words in a Bible in common use and you were talking about the meaning of the words they were translated from (that could have been brought up at the outset). Something similar is happening with definitions of the word religion now. If you're implying I have an agenda to attack religion until my fingers bleed from typing, fact is that I have the same approach to homeopathy. And chi. And untested herbals. And any hypothesis--I don't just give religious views a pass, especially when they guide policy decisions in the USA that concern me (teaching of creationism vs evolution, attempts to ban birth control, gag rules for doctors, launchings of wars, personal freedoms like marriage, underuse of HPV vaccines, nonsense about HIV, etc). And I like my beliefs attacked and tested and improved. I've said so many a time. No secrets and always happy to answer questions. I am also always happy to know just what we're talking about, e.g., religion as commonly viewed or "deep beliefs."
This ends your regularly scheduled post; I am moving on to address a specific claim of Bill's, that we do not see "that [chi] kind of BS" in religion aside from faith healers. Well, yes if you define the fringe as anyone who does a chi type, here and now power demo, then definitionally, that's correct. But, we see other miraculous "BS" all the time. Doesn't one need to demonstrate miracles to establish sainthood? Does not the wafer and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ for many? Weekly! Do Scientologists believe, or not, the story about the nukes and volcanoes and thetan souls? Does the Holy Spirit not move hundreds of people to tears and literally make its presence known in your Colorado megachurch? Is or is not accepting the lord Jesus Christ (or receiving communion / making confessions) more or less a prerequisite for eternal life? Did humans walk amongst dinosaurs or didn't they? Are or are not Mormons saving souls by baptizing substitute souls in the here and now? Evangelical leaders--did they or did they not believe that American sinfulness was responsible for the attacks on the twin towers and a hurricane in New Orleans? Was a prayer then followed by a request for cash?
Like I've said many a time, there are many wonderful and giving religious charities, and I've promoted them (and others) here. Religious people do wonderful things. But I don't have a hangup because I subject these claims to the same scrutiny I do everything else. If we make an exception for a certain class of beliefs just because, that sounds like someone has an issue.
You said that if chi can't be proven or measured or that if we can do as well without, it's useless; I indicate only that I would apply those standards to religion as well.
You're claiming religion is "useful," but citing association studies gets us nowhere, and if someone else cited association studies to establish that TCM was effective or "useful," you'd logically savage them (or let me do it).
The latest twist is that your minister doesn't believe in God or a soul and you're beyond usual definitions. Say that *I* am redefining things all you want, but that's not religion to any religious person I've ever discussed this with (no offense intended to any UU's out there). If we go by your three criteria (and not by the near universal experience of forum readers who associate religion primarily with supernatural beliefs, and primarily the three great monotheisms with some occasional crosscultural deference to Hindus and others), then Dawkins and Hitchens are deeply religious. I'm deeply religious. Religious means anything--then of course it becomes a minimally useful term.
If that's what you mean, many would have just said so at the beginning (perhaps by listing the three criteria and including a note about how you exclude an element not just common but central and essential to most people's religion). To skip over this step when the very word means something different to almost everyone, then to "gotcha" me with your nonsupernatural criteria--I don't understand the point. A better term would have been a belief system or coping system, and would have easily avoided the confusion. You could have also avoided citing 4 studies that deal not with "coping systems" or with deeply felt atheistic ethics structures but rather clearly religious religions. Ones with deities that can't be measured, proven, and that we can accomplish things without, just like chi. Or you could have ventured whether you think the findings apply to other belief systems.
If you're merely saying that deep belief (including in pure particle physics or in the Golden rule, etc) can help us cope with illness or stress, well then, sure. That's a pretty noncontroversial claim. I don't know anyone who would disagree. Case closed?
Meanwhile, I'm not trying to redefine anything. People usually refer to belief in deities, or at least spirits, when they discuss religion. I'm not making this up; let's ask a dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
As for my failure to give "full disclosure," feel free to ask me a specific question. We were misunderstanding each other not long ago when I was talking about the english words in a Bible in common use and you were talking about the meaning of the words they were translated from (that could have been brought up at the outset). Something similar is happening with definitions of the word religion now. If you're implying I have an agenda to attack religion until my fingers bleed from typing, fact is that I have the same approach to homeopathy. And chi. And untested herbals. And any hypothesis--I don't just give religious views a pass, especially when they guide policy decisions in the USA that concern me (teaching of creationism vs evolution, attempts to ban birth control, gag rules for doctors, launchings of wars, personal freedoms like marriage, underuse of HPV vaccines, nonsense about HIV, etc). And I like my beliefs attacked and tested and improved. I've said so many a time. No secrets and always happy to answer questions. I am also always happy to know just what we're talking about, e.g., religion as commonly viewed or "deep beliefs."
This ends your regularly scheduled post; I am moving on to address a specific claim of Bill's, that we do not see "that [chi] kind of BS" in religion aside from faith healers. Well, yes if you define the fringe as anyone who does a chi type, here and now power demo, then definitionally, that's correct. But, we see other miraculous "BS" all the time. Doesn't one need to demonstrate miracles to establish sainthood? Does not the wafer and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ for many? Weekly! Do Scientologists believe, or not, the story about the nukes and volcanoes and thetan souls? Does the Holy Spirit not move hundreds of people to tears and literally make its presence known in your Colorado megachurch? Is or is not accepting the lord Jesus Christ (or receiving communion / making confessions) more or less a prerequisite for eternal life? Did humans walk amongst dinosaurs or didn't they? Are or are not Mormons saving souls by baptizing substitute souls in the here and now? Evangelical leaders--did they or did they not believe that American sinfulness was responsible for the attacks on the twin towers and a hurricane in New Orleans? Was a prayer then followed by a request for cash?
Like I've said many a time, there are many wonderful and giving religious charities, and I've promoted them (and others) here. Religious people do wonderful things. But I don't have a hangup because I subject these claims to the same scrutiny I do everything else. If we make an exception for a certain class of beliefs just because, that sounds like someone has an issue.
--Ian
-
f.Channell
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Valhalla
One religion doesn't tell us much. And it's under too many interpretations. And religious leaders are bias to many Christian texts.
Take these words from the Gospel of Thomas attributed to Jesus.
So if one is filled with light are we talking chi?
f.
Take these words from the Gospel of Thomas attributed to Jesus.
I studied this stuff as a way of understanding ancient Rome and early Christians, not from a religious perspective.5" For this reason I say, if one is (whole), one will be filled with light, but if one is divided, one will be filled with darkness."
So if one is filled with light are we talking chi?
f.
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
www.hinghamkarate.com
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Wow, Justin! Fiscal conservatives believe in the dignity and worth of others as well. It's just that when others need a hand, they'd prefer to do it on their own rather than have government presume it's their role and steal money out of their pockets. This is why social conservatives are big on faith-based organizations. My great grandparents' generation often came over with their church to establish communities over here. Religion wasn't just about God and the afterlife for them; it was about establishing a community fabric in a strange and hostile land so that all could survive. Indeed it was a matter of life and death.Valkenar wrote:
once one stops seeing poor people as just too lazy/stupid/whatever to pull themselves up by the boot straps, it's not a big leap to thinking that it would be kind of nice to help them out.
In a way you probably don't quite understand, Justin, I see you with somewhat sheltered thinking. In my days as a geologist, I traveled to some beautiful and unusual places. It's fair to say that rural and frontier America is a place where - if something bad happened to you - you could find a friend in the strangest places. I got offered meals of the most unusual kinds of food from people I've never met before in the middle of nowhere in the Ozarks. People may know everything about everyone else's business and gossip way too much, but that's how crazy granny survives. This is functional libertarianism. Everyone makes it just fine, and without forced government intervention. It's how the Amish do without modern conveniences. It's how people make it in wild, untamed Alaska - the last of our great frontiers. (And no, this isn't a Sarah Palin campaign commercial.)
ANY church would find a functional role where government was asked to butt out. Individual members would contributed voluntarily rather than be forced to do so based on another's idea about what was right and socially just.
FWIW, I'm abivalent about the idea of God. I can live with one; I can live without one. But I'm very positive on the Judeochristian values instilled in me by my parochial school experience - arthritic hands notwithstanding. (jk)
Why not watch It's A Wonderful Life again. That's my Christmas thought for you.Valkenar wrote:
And as we all know, conservatives prefer to have a peasantry to look down on. Just a little Christmas ribbing there for ya.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Wow, Ian. I give you a review article from Duke University, and you brush it off as an "association" study. That and cite me a study on prayer that I could have told you would come out negative.IJ wrote:
You're claiming religion is "useful," but citing association studies gets us nowhere
Ever heard of Duke? Pretty good in medicine I hear. As I recall, Teddy Kennedy preferred leaving the medical Mecca and social Eden of Boston to be treated down there to extend his life. Go figure... (The irony of that is rich, but a non sequitur.)
I *DID* define the central beliefs of virtually all religions in the very beginning, Ian. And I'm told that I've excluded an important element - one you're trying to use as the skeleton of the strawman you wish to destroy. And I keep dodging that ball, because I have no reason to stand in front of it. I'm not being held in your narrow box.IJ wrote:
If that's what you mean, many would have just said so at the beginning (perhaps by listing the three criteria and including a note about how you exclude an element not just common but central and essential to most people's religion).
Ever read Greek Mythology, Ian? Ever studied the religion of the Celts? Paganism? Those of the First Americans? Hinduism? Buddhism? You really do need to get out, son!
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I see light and dark as metaphors like yin and yang. And I use the yin/yang analogy all the time when teaching pangainoon (a.k.a. Uechi Ryu). The analogy is extremely useful. That and the "pat the head, rub the tummy" analogy I use to describe the inherent "crosstalk" problem we spend so much time conquering in our practice.f.Channell wrote:I studied this stuff as a way of understanding ancient Rome and early Christians, not from a religious perspective.5" For this reason I say, if one is (whole), one will be filled with light, but if one is divided, one will be filled with darkness."
So if one is filled with light are we talking chi?
f.
- Bill
-
f.Channell
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Valhalla
One of the core beliefs of the Puritans.
Doing nice things for people meant zero.
With the Pagans, Greeks etc which God? and of course some rulers were living Gods at various times in ancient civilizations, including most roman Emperors.
F.
Doing nice things for people meant zero.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tse ... uritan.htmThe God of Calvin (and the Puritans) did not give “extra credit"—nor, indeed, any credit—for the good works that men and women performed during their lives.
With the Pagans, Greeks etc which God? and of course some rulers were living Gods at various times in ancient civilizations, including most roman Emperors.
F.
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
www.hinghamkarate.com
