Remembering the Barefoot Doctors

[IJ]

He said Taoism was cool with him and he wants you to know Jefferson is for your right to practice it. Doesn't mean he believes there is chi. And you raise his ire when you make specific testable claims about chi. Also, vague support of belief is a cool part of the human mystery. Got it? I *think* that's most of it.

[Bill Glasheen]

I have an idea, Ian and Justin. Perhaps if you try this, I might tell you what you want to hear.



Meanwhile... we'll see what I can do you for until you set the table up.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Bill, as you're well aware, no one can prove or disprove that there's a substance flowing in us called chi. SOME people make wacky assertions about using it to double their punching power, but others just think it's there. And they think there's something so cool and spiritual (zen, probably) about believing it when it can't be proven or disproven or tested. So why is it you so nastily proclaim your disdain: "I attack the *BELIEF* in chi"?

Because I'm the Grinch who steals your chi. I am the anti-chi. Just ask some of the folks on myriad Forums who argued against the experiment I ran in An Empty Force. They sure give me a lot of credit.

Back in the day when my father was an active member of Neighborhood Watch and was involved in a conviction a month, the neighbors started calling him Warlock. Maybe I'm Son of Warlock. You just never know...



On the day I was born, the nurses all gathered 'round
And they gazed in wide wonder, at the joy they had found
The head nurse spoke up, and she said leave this one alone
She could tell right away, that I was bad to the bone
Bad to the bone
Bad to the bone
B-B-B-B-Bad to the bone
B-B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-B-Bad
Bad to the bone*

- Bill

* With apologies to George Thorogood & the Destroyers

[Bill Glasheen]

Are you really just saying....

Stop telling me what I'm saying, and start quoting what I said.

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

Chi as it is described in the west is a badly-translated word that describes many things in Chinese culture and meridian-based Chinese medicine. It has nothing to do with ethics, (im)mortality, or the origin of the universe.

If you want to worry about the presence or absence of a supernatural being, well knock yourself out. I don't lose any sleep over it. I can live with it, and I can live without it.

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)

The essence of Judeochristian teachings isn't in the institutions or even the dogma; it is in the way you conduct your life. The essence of TJ's Statute is that YOU don't get to tell me how.

The most important thing I learned with my Judeochristian training is what I do and not who I associate with.

I'd rather look around me -- compose a better song
`cos that's the honest measure of my worth.
In your pomp and all your glory you're a poorer man than me,
as you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.

Jethro and I get it just fine.

There are only so many ways I can tell you what *I* believe. After a while, I start repeating myself - as is evidenced by quoting myself. What? I'm consistent? I don't change my story??

Get the waterboard out!!!



- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

The difference between that Holy Spirit and Chi is???

One is a Christian deity; the other is a word that describes many different things in Chinese medicine and movement - depending on what "chi" you are talking about.

If you really want to understand any of this without the cr@p language that gets thrown at you by chisters and granola heads, by all means start reading books by people who speak both languages fluently (English and Mandarin) and know what they are talking about.

I highly recommend this book - sent to me by Tim Cartmell.



Tim won't throw the "chi" word around - because it's a useless word. You might as well call everything you don't understand "fuzzy bunny." It's just as helpful. And everyone loves a cute bunny.

- Bill

[IJ]

When a message comes thru fuzzy, there's something wrong with the source, transmission, or receiver. I guess we're never going to agree on whether not answering questions or responding with rock lyrics or unlinked thoughts is clear, or whether the problem is at the other end, but at least we've got some progress here:

You're consistent, but I still think consistently inconsistent with regard to chi. Now you're just the grinch w.r.t. chi... I'm not allowed to try to piece together what you think, but... totally hypothetically...

If one thinks chi is useless and would do away with it (without interfering with others' right to practice), while haboring nongrinchlike feelings toward christianity, that might be reasonable if one finds the Christianity useful, especially if they think the supernatural component 1) isn't a major feature [beyond that, that supernatural aspects aren't important to the idea of religion in general] and 2) doesn't cause any problems. Favoring a body mechanics perspective toward karate probably helps erase any use for chi in one's thinking.

It's an interesting perspective to totally hypothetically have. The issues I have with it are:

1) Supernatural beliefs are in fact featured prominently in almost all religions and according to almost all religious people. And they're not just prominent, but the point, and essential, to those religious people. Eternal life if you are born again and damnation if you're not is no small matter, for example.

2) Those prominent beliefs DO cause problems--with our education (creationism in schools), environment (end times a'comin'--who cares?), safety (the Pope opposes condoms in HIV-ridden areas), community (many examples), and peace (again...)

3) The things that actually are judeochristian are not necessary for the good aspects of judeochristian values. Here's a list of oft praised and too often underconsidered rules of conduct (ref: Wiki):

1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me..."

This commandment is to believe in the existence of God and His influence on events in the world [31], and that the goal of the redemption from Egypt was to become His servants (Rashi). It prohibits belief in or worship of any additional deities.[citation needed]

2. "Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

This prohibits the construction or fashioning of "idols" in the likeness of created things (beasts, fish, birds, people) and worshipping them.

3. "Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."

This commandment is to never take the name of God in a vain, pointless or insincere oath.[32]

4. "Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy" (the version in Deuteronomy reads shamor, "observe")

The seventh day of the week is termed Shabbat and is holy, just as God ceased creative activity during Creation. The aspect of zachor is performed by declaring the greatness of the day (kiddush), by having three festive meals, and by engaging in Torah study and pleasurable activities. The aspect of shamor is performed by abstaining from productive activity (39 melachot) on the Shabbat.

5. "Honor your father and your mother..."

The obligation to honor one's parents is an obligation that one owes to God and fulfills this obligation through one's actions towards one's parents.

6. "Do not murder"

Murdering a human being is a capital sin.[33]

7. "Do not commit adultery."

Adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife.[32]

8. "Do not steal."

According to Rashi, this is not understood as stealing in the conventional sense, since theft of property is forbidden elsewhere and is not a capital offense. In this context it is to be taken as "do not kidnap."[32]

9. "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor"

One must not bear false witness in a court of law or other proceeding.

10. "Do not covet your neighbor's wife"

One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another. Maimonides makes a distinction in codifying the laws between the instruction given here in Exodus (You shall not covet) and that given in Deuteronomy (You shall not desire), according to which one does not violate the Exodus commandment unless there is a physical action associated with the desire, even if this is legally purchasing an envied object.

It's ok I guess, but considering that deities and supernatural beliefs and so on aren't part of the big three things religion is about, there sure is a lot of God stuff in the beginning. Assuming these aren't relevant to the utility of judeochristian ethics to people who can take or leave the idea of a God, we can dispense with them. Plus, one always wonder how the Jews behaved before these laws came down from above. Were they breaking all the rules, especially 5-10, willy-nilly until they were instructed this stuff was bad? I seriously hope not. Anyhoo, which of the nonsupernatural concepts are lacking in the following list?

(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.

(3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

(4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

(5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

(6) Always seek to be learning something new.

(7) Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

(8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

(9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

(10) Question everything.

Those are an atheist's suggested ten commandments according to Dawkins (he also lists several other versions). One can come up with perfectly good ethics without religion, sometimes, in spite of it. Certainly the expected behavior of your average American has improved substantially since the founding of our nation (think of slavery, rights of women, treatment of employees, treatment of prisoners, tolerance of dissent). There were no major advancements in Bible study over that time that I am aware of. Alternatively, if one wants to chase just after ethics, why not embrace the Bahai? http://info.bahai.org/bahaullah-basic-teachings.html THESE are the people I would LEAST worry about running into in a dark alley at night, no question.

All said I think it's noncontroversial to state that we tend to develop a fondness and a bit of allegiance for the religion we grow up with, even if we disregard many of it's central tenets. At this point we're talking about culture, rather than religion.

Anyway Bill, you can put away your waterboard, of course, because no one has yet tried to get you to change your nuanced perspective--just describe and make sense of it! Merry Christmas. We don't waterboard on Christmas! Nothing wrong with a pleasant and community building tradition now and then.

[Bill Glasheen]

If one thinks chi is useless and would do away with it (without interfering with others' right to practice)

I don't understand. How can I do away with something that doesn't exist? That implies I'd have to create it de novo before destroying it. Why bother with all that effort?

As for the rest of your post... It's sounds like you don't ascribe to Christianity, but do ascribe to Atheism. And to that I say good for you! I support your right to practice and hold those religious beliefs.

Easy on the proselytizing, Ian.

- Bill

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

- Thomas Jefferson

[Gene DeMambro]

Please go here for a non sequitur.

- The Editor

[IJ]

I would be surprised if you did not know by "doing away with chi" I meant "doing away with the concept of chi." Or that you didn't know my target here has been consistency and logic and not a particular religion, or even lack there of--hence my mention of bahai, and my happiness to coexist amicably with people who simply acknowledge that faith (in their religion, say) is on equal footing proof-wise with other faiths (eg chi), and treat them in the same way. I got along famously with a born again christian and semi-reluctant geologist who thought the earth was 10,000 years old. We disagreed respectfully and understood the limitations of our respective sources.

[Bill Glasheen]

So you are saying that belief in chi in martial arts is a religion? That's priceless! You can keep trying to equate religion and science, Ian, and you'll keep getting the Bronx raspberry from me.

As for faith... Many people have faith that their relationships will last. But sheet does happen, doesn't it? So don't go there either.

Why not cut to the chase, Ian? You do not like Christianity. And you are using some kind of strange chi logic to convince me that I MUST agree with you. Sorry... I don't believe in chi, so your logic won't work on me.

Practice your atheism all you want, but save the proselytizing. Born-agains try it on me all the time. Don't ask me why people think I need to be "saved" - you included.

- Bill

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson

[IJ]

No, I never said chi was a religion. I have said they are both faith, belief in the absence of solid evidence, and we should be consistent as to how we respond to that kind of stuff. You've been mixing it up with the stuff on rights which was never an issue, and on utility (but not of religion (as viewed by most everyone), rather some teachings which are part of religion, and exist as happily without it, and without mention of the utility of belief in chi), so I'm sure that possessing a definition of religion that doesn't require one or more deities, or any supernatural beliefs, and incorporates atheism as a religion, you can stretch your views enough to see some overlap in principles. They're comparable.

That kind of faith in relationships is probably better termed expectation or hope rather than faith. I guess people have puppy love and think it'll last forever, but they also tend to have life experience (at least your average adult) and know the statistics and of examples of failures, and don't have a similar pseudocertainty about it. I bet/hope it doesn't surprise you that I've started relationships with a promise that no matter what (even if things end, and even if badly) I'll always try to do my best for the other person and wish them happiness, and I have bad relationships with zero ex's as a result. Selection is probably a second factor Just seemed like a Golden Rule thing to do.

[Bill Glasheen]

No, I never said chi was a religion. I have said they are both faith, belief in the absence of solid evidence, and we should be consistent as to how we respond to that kind of stuff.

You are wrong, Ian. Chi is foo foo; religion is very real. Chi cannot be detected in an experimental setting; the positive benefits of religion has. I cannot help that you suddenly turn a deaf ear to science when peer reviewed publications have shown religion/religiosity to have a positive medical benefit.

It is your prerogative to strip the positive essence of religion out of religion and call it something that isn't religion. But that's just semantics, Ian; your atheism is a belief system. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

I leave you with a piece from Darran Laur's The Anatomy Of Fear and How It Relates To Survival Skills Training

One must remember that in combat, a person’s heart rate can go from 70 bpm to 220bpm in less than half a second. So what is the "combat maximum performance range" when it comes to SSR and heart rate? In his studies, Siddle found that it is between 115-145 bpm. Siddle also found that a fighter’s "maximum reaction time performance range" is also between 115-145 bpm. In other words, the 115-145 bpm range is where fighting skills (gross motor) and reaction time are maximized.

As I said earlier, SSR is an autonomic response, which happens without conscious thought. Having said this, Siddle in his research has found that a person can manage SSR to attain that peak 115-145 bpm range in the following ways:

{snip}

Faith System:

• You do not want to go into combat without having things resolved
• Both the ancient samurai and the kamikaze’s during WWII understood this important rule
• Even in our modern times, there are certain special warfare teams around the world that are allowed to make peace with their deity prior to mission
• A strong faith system, whatever that faith system may be, MINIMIZES the fear of dying. As a graphic example of this, look at the events of September 11th and how the terrorists were not afraid to die and thus were able to carry out their mission. Also, look at what is happening in Israel right now with suicide bombers!
• Remember, combat is not the place for you to be making major adjustments to your belief system. You need to be concentrating on the task at hand and nothing else. Not to do so places yourself in jeopardy

- Bill

[IJ]

I see we've moved from trying to persuade each other to just saying "you're wrong."

Let's examine your thesis in a little more detail:

"You are wrong, Ian. Chi is foo foo; religion is very real."

Here you're, I have to say willfully, getting sloppy. Chi is something which many claim to see the effects of and find beneficial, and its existence is disputed. I will side with you that it is foo foo (scientific term noted). But you don't compare chi with religion. Chi is something postulated to exist by believers in chi, or people who practice TCM or Taoism, whatever: a system that is based on belief in chi. The appropriate comparator here is not religion, which is obviously real (hello? I don't dispute the presence of, say, the Vatican) but God, deities, spirits, etc--the thing that distinguishes nearly all religion (some members of some branches of some religions, like UU, may not require this) from other systems of belief, like the studied atheism I've cited. Religion does not "own" a concern about our mortality (that's just human nature), the origin of things, or the Golden Rule.

So let's rewrite your sentence with an appropriate comparator: God. One could just as easily pick Gods, spirits, etc. Here you are:

"Chi is foo foo; God is very real."

That's a sentence you'd have a hard time proving! Maybe we should try it the other way:

"Belief in Chi, or TCM, is foo foo; religion is very real."

Nope, that doesn't work either. We know that there are tons of adherents of TCM just like there are Catholics, and we know there is an organized body of work based on their beliefs, as yet unverified, as there are Qurans and Torahs and so on. I think you're really stuck with the reality:

"Belief in Chi, or TCM, is common and that belief is held with conviction, just like religion, or belief in God."

Then we can move on with your next point:

"Chi cannot be detected in an experimental setting; the positive benefits of God has."

Again, this isn't the right comparator. You even have to add words about the benefit to make this sentence work. You could have written:

"Chi cannot be detected in an experimental setting, but God has."

That woulda piqued Randi's curiosity and just isn't true at present (hey, maybe one or both will be). The fair sentence to write would have been:

"The positive benefits of belief in chi cannot be detected in an experimental setting, but the positive benefits of believing in God have."

THAT we can talk about! Here are the problems: first, China (etc) is not stupid. There's a billion plus people that probably believe in chi. They are NOT morons. Belief in chi must serve some utility for them. More and more Americans are embracing alternative medicine too. Many many many believe that use of TCM or chi based medicine helps them. And these positive benefits CAN be demonstrated in an experimental setting: there are lots of studies in which people who got acupuncture did better than those that did not. Now, you can argue that that's because of the placebo effect, and I won't argue with you. But sometimes when you're a nation of a billion people and you're poor, a cheap, nondangerous placebo isn't the end of the world (unless it impedes development of proven therapies).

On the second side of that sentence is your over enthusiasm for the positive benefits of God. You skip over findings in at least three studies of possible harms of prayer, for one. You don't mention the fact that some people skip lifesaving therapies to go get their religious cure (or worse--pray over a kid that's, I dunno, DYING OF TYPE ONE DIABETES instead of getting help).

You completely ignore the fact that while something like acupuncture can be tested in reasonably well blinded trials, religion cannot. There ARE experimental trials of chi based therapy showing benefit; to my knowledge, there are none of religion. ALL you have posted are association studies, and you are well aware these are irrevocably tainted by selection bias. One cannot tease out the benefit of religion from all the things that might come with it, including family structure, income, community, willingness to take direction, a positive mindset--all of which could come from religion or could make someone more predisposed to choosing religion.

Plus, the people that did better were those with more positive religious coping. That's an association only--perhaps people have a more positive religious experience when it seems God has gone easy on them compared to someone else. Cause and effect are totally unclear. It is a further leap when one considers what to do with the information. If you really believe that religion is the cause of better outcomes, would you advocate using it as a therapy? We're at the pre-trial HRT phase here: HRT was correlated with better outcomes when researchers tried their best to remove confounders; when it was actually studied in an RCT, it caused more problems than it solved. Oops! Plus, you can give someone HRT; you can't make them just believe in something for which you have no proof (and which one? will any do? how do you decide, when most claim they've got the exclusive truth? have ANY data that nonreligious coping is worse?). That limits the "benefit" to admitting that it would be reasonable at most to avoid trying to debunk some patient's religion while they're in the middle of serious illness--and no one I've ever heard of has ever done that, or even done it while patients are well!* I've already mentioned, in fact, that I embrace my patient's religious beliefs, encourage their positive religious coping, get them connected to priests (etc) in times of need and so on--I would do the very same for a sick acupuncture enthusiast. Lastly, we have the simple problem that a belief being useful does not mean that something is true.

"I cannot help that you suddenly turn a deaf ear to science when peer reviewed publications have shown religion/religiosity to have a positive medical benefit."

If by deaf you mean analyzing the data, recognizing their limitations, thinking about application, and correcting "have a positive benefit" to "associated with good outcomes," then yeah, I've got a guilty deaf science ear, as charged :/

*The only case reports I know of for the flip side, are 1) Hassan, who used to try to convert his US Military (!!) psych patients to Islam (before his shooting rampage) and 2) people who use religion to "cure" (non)illnesses such as homosexuality and 3) groups like the nation of islam who do religious drug detox and claim a pretty good result rate. I'd be curious to know of any others...

[Bill Glasheen]

There you go again, Ian.

Please go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read what *I* wrote. Stop trying to create a strawman.

Keep on misbehaving and I'm gonna send the Easter Bunny over to kick yer a**

- Bill

[gmattson]

I believe you are the one putting straw-men arguments into this thread and Ian should be congratulated for remaining calm and quite logical in his attempt to address the original topic.

It is my "opinion" that subjects like Chi and God are impossible to prove, BUT. . . may exist for individuals who "believe" in them. (Which is what Ian has been saying I believe)

I'm not an expert, but I believe this qualifies as a straw-man argument:

So you are saying that belief in chi in martial arts is a religion? That's priceless!