the placebo effect

[_Jersey Girl]

Can I be the I Don't Know Why The Hell I Always Feel Inclined To Follow The Science Threads Queen? Please? :)

Of course :D
...may yours and Coggins reign be peaceful and just.

No, our forces are in conflict. I dub thee Sir Knight Phunk A-lot. Go forth and do some science stuff.

And may thine bang always be big.

(Why do people do this to me? It's not my fault, honest it's not.)

[_Inconceivable]

Man, was I off topic.

[_charity]

I have often pushed this idea that some people can feel a self-induced testimony if one really wants it to happen.

This phenomenon is common in non-sp[iritual contexts as well. In medicine, doctors call this the placebo effect:

"The physician's belief in the treatment and the patient's faith in the physician exert a mutually reinforcing effect; the result is a powerful remedy that is almost guaranteed to produce an improvement and sometimes a cure."

A perfect example of this would be acupuncture. While medically it is considered a sham, it has resulted in the improvement of health because the patient truly believes in it.

Another example was exhibited on the Chris Angel (mindfreak) show last week, where he took a dozen people and gave them a spiritual "reading" using tarot cards. In preparation, he merely wrote down some things from various fortune cookies and newspaper horoscopes, but he provided the exact same reading for all of the participants. The result was that every single participant walked away with the feeling that he was a psychic. They felt his readings pertained to them in the most intimate details. Why? Because of the placebo effect.

Not much critical thinking occurs here, but the end result is good feelings because ultimately, that is what the body wants.

I submit that the phenomenon of the Mormon testimony is not much different.

First, the medical use of placebos is not the same thing as a person identifying "correct" horoscopes or other parlor mind games. And you really should have included in your little analysis the "nocebo" effect. You don't believe soemthing is true and it won't work, even if it is an efficacious drug.

I question your "body wants" analysis. How does that work with the Holy Ghost exactly?

[_Ren]

And may thine bang always be big.

I dub thee Sir Knight Phunk A-lot. Go forth and do some science stuff.

Yes 'me lady. You might want to stand back - my bang is pretty big...!

[_Moniker]

And may thine bang always be big.

I dub thee Sir Knight Phunk A-lot. Go forth and do some science stuff.

Yes 'me lady. You might want to stand back - my bang is pretty big...!

Heh! I typed up a few double entendres and thought better of them. Glad you delivered. ;)

Don't wanna get anyone too "frothy"

[_dartagnan]

Actually I think they are relying on scientific models, which aren't precisely the same thing as faith in unfounded religious propositions.

Fair enough, but not all models are developed or based upon facts. Some are developed and based upon assumptions, and some for the sake of explaining scientifically why something else happens. So in this sense I think there is enough similarity between the two. Both sides argue from positions that cannot be proved empirically. And from my experience, the athiest can be just as pig-headed and dogmatic in his beliefs as the theist.

[_malkie]

...
A model is true if it is an accurate model of reality.

As far as we are able to determine at the present? (i.e., pending further information, or a better explanation?)


Not arguing with you, RoP, just trying to educate myself. I have an aversion to an unqualified "true" and "accurate".

[_guy sajer]

Well for me, I cannot wrap my mind around the notion that we are here due to a big bang, and that the beauty of the universe is just an accident.

It has intelligent design written all over its face, as far as I can see, and when atheists try to explain to me why it isn't, I find them engaging in the same kind of cognitive processes exhibited by the apologists.

I guess they just have faith that the big bang (or whatever theory they fancy) ocurred.

There's a world of difference between science and the type of cognitive processes you've described. Frankly, I'm surprised we have to make this point to you.

The transparency of science compared to the complete lack of transparency involved in personal feelings is but one example.

How can you be sure that your belief in intelligent design isn't a product of the same cognitive processes?

I'd lay odds that the probability for this is vastly higher than the probability that science is driven by the irrational process you ascribe to it.

[_dartagnan]

There's a world of difference between science and the type of cognitive processes you've described. Frankly, I surprised we have to make this point to you.

I don't think you understand my point at all if this is what you think. Where did I ever say "science" was synonymous with these cognitive processes?

The transparency of science compared to the complete lack of transparency involved in personal feelings is but one example.

But intelligent design is not based on feelings at all. It is by far the best, if not the only, reasonable explanation. This is why humans had to invent deism. Even those who despise organized religion can't seem to get away from the evidence that a God truly does exist. And agnostics have to admit science has not provided any evidence strong enough to discount the possibility.

The atheist's counter-argument, comes up with whatever model it can think of it seems, and the only thing it is 100% sure about is that a God doesn't exist. It seems its entire worldview is designed to reject something as opposed to allowing for all possibilities. That doesn't hold water for me. It sounds too much like those who vote for a republican simply because they hate Hillary.

How can you be sure that your belief in intelligent design isn't a product of the same cognitive processes?

Because it isn't based on feelings. When I refer to similar cognitive processes I am speaking of atheists defending their positions which they admittedly cannot prove, anymore than a theist can prove God exists. They reject the evidence out of hand the same way a theists rejects evidence presented against his or her faith. In my view, atheists can be equally arrogant, bigoted and dogmatic in their atheism, the same as any bible-thumper.

I'd lay odds that the probability for this is vastly higher than the probability that science is driven by the irrational process you ascribe to it.

I never said "science" is driven by this. Only the particular arguments that insist God cannot exist. The irony here is that when a theist cannot fall back on proof, he at least comes clean and says it is based on faith. When an atheist cannot prove his points, he maintains them just as arrogantly and then refuses to admit that teh fact-free void he is falling back on, is nothing like the theist's faith, but that is precisely what it is as far as I am concerned.

[_beastie]

But intelligent design is not based on feelings at all. It is by far the best, if not the only, reasonable explanation. This is why humans had to invent deism. Even those who despise organized religion can't seem to get away from the evidence that a God truly does exist. And agnostics have to admit science has not provided any evidence strong enough to discount the possibility.

Actually, human beings invented deism because evolution was still not understood at that point. If the past deists had access to the theory of evolution, they would not have needed to invent deism at all.

Agnosticism is not based on the idea that there isn't strong evidence, but rather on the idea that a God would be fundamentally unknowable by his very nature, hence, certainty cannot exist. Technically, I am an agnostic atheist, and people can certainly be agnostic deist or theists. In fact, it seems to me that every religion which bases itself on faith could correctly be labeled agnostic.

I think there is very strong evidence that God does not exist. However, I recognize that if a godbeing existed, he/she would be, by nature, completely outside our dimensions and comprehensions, so 100% certainty cannot be held. I simply view the likelihood of a god existing as being so small that it's irrelevant to my life.