* pre-existing schema

*turned

I'm not quite sure what the question is. As a non-believer, I believe its the placebo effect. I don't see any implications, other than knowing that if I was deathly ill, I wish I had faith, but I don't, so its a moot point.

Actually, I'd counter that you do have faith. For instance do you believe that scientists have the ability to eventually find a cure for an illness like cancer (for instance)?

Also I'm glad to see that clarification that you believe that it's the placebo effect. That shows that we're on the same page as to how we're interpreting the data.

but he doesn't have the stereotypical kind of faith.

You could say a man is rich in friendship, but it wont matter in an arguement about whether or not he could afford something.

That "faith" is not the same as your faith... One is based on empirical evidence. I suppose I could use the word faith in saying that I have "faith" that if I have an equal mixture solution of liquid benzene and toluene, there will be a larger proportion benzene in the gas above the solution than toluene, and I could have enough "faith" that I could give you approximate percentages of that proportion. I could also say I have faith that I will be reincarnated as a dog upon my death. While faith could probably be used as a word in both cases, their meanings are not synonymous.

I am optimistic that scientists will find a cure for cancer, because despite that curing cancer is very difficult given the nature of cancer, scientists have so far proven themselves to be up to the task of curing a plethora of diseases that were once thought to be equally dangerous. It will not be by some miraculous process, but by the ingenuity, dedication, and hard work of researchers, scientists, and physicians around the world.

I do believe that the beneficial effects of religion are social, and not because of an actual hand played by God. I suppose a study must be done between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism to see if it's a specific brand of belief that is most beneficial, or simply the act of believing that is beneficial.

As Chrispminis said, I think there is a major difference between 'faith' and FAITH.


Having 'faith' in something like Scientists ability to solve something, or faith in an institution, or a similar manner of things has an epistomological basis.

In this case, faith simply is; thus I believe the most reasonable outcome of events is the following based on past experience.



FAITH, is much different. Blind or absolute faith as seemingly required by many religions is more of an unfounded belief.

To have a grsp of God, or a belief in many religious things absolutely must require some suspension of disbelief.

Moreover, the Christian version of faith requires more than just mere belief or trust. To truly be one with faith a Christian must actively put thier will into that of Gods, a sort of positive application of an unsubstantiated belief that seeks to substantiate it.




In my humble opinion, there is a profound difference between the two.

When I said Gods, I meant God. Whoops, I'm feeling a tad Hindu today...

As to the faith being being different. I'd counter that a religious person is likely in their lifetime to see several people being healed and recovering quickly. These other people being like minded are likely to hold fast to their beliefs and insist that it is an integral part of their healing. That same person, when looking at the evidence that religious belief has health benefits, has a claim to faith based upon evidence. Therefore religious faith cannot be summarily assumed to be different, much less "blind" or "unfounded".

I like the way you think, Anglican. The truth is every belief requires equal amounts of faith.

Crazy Anglican, I would argue that in both cases of your example, there are empircal and deductive rationales for having faith in faiths ability to heal.

One type of evidence may be stronger, but they are both evidence.

Ultimately however, the evidence in both cases only proves a single thing- that faith has healing properties.




Genuine religious faith requires more than mere direct observations of facts and likelyhoods.

"I was healed by faith, and so were others- therefore I have faith that faith heals" is not equivalent to;

"I see that the world is complicated, and that there is no satisfactory way to disprove my beliefs- therefore I have faith that they are true"

The 'normal' version of faith would only take stock in what is logical- that my beliefs are not *necessarily* false, and not extrapolate unsupported.

Assuming we live in an ordered universe (which is a necessity for any argumention to be meaningful), then this line of reasoning means that all types of faith are not created equal.


Substantiation needs more than facts; it needs consistency, it needs a coherent line of logic.

"As to the faith being being different. I'd counter that a religious person is likely in their lifetime to see several people being healed and recovering quickly. These other people being like minded are likely to hold fast to their beliefs and insist that it is an integral part of their healing. That same person, when looking at the evidence that religious belief has health benefits, has a claim to faith based upon evidence. Therefore religious faith cannot be summarily assumed to be different, much less "blind" or "unfounded"."

I would point out that any person is likely in their lifetime to see several people being healed and recovering quickly. An important thing to note is that none of these miracles have been beyond physical possibility and simple chance. If someone were to witness a religious amputee re-growing a limb, then I would give it much more credit, but if it's someone recovering from cancer then I'd have to give the credit to the physician and the body of scientific knowledge that aided the recovery. If you can show me a double-blinded study in which prayers had an empirical effect on the well-being on patients I'd also be more willing to give credit where credit is due, but from the few that have been done so far, it seems this is not the case.

I think that a religious person is willing to accept these recoveries as an Act of God but doesn't have a control group to determine if this is the case or whether the recoveries were liable to happen with or without the existence or intervention of God. The fallacy is common even in secular reasoning, and is one of the many things we have to watch out for. When someone buys a Toyota Camry, they're liable to suddenly notice that there are a lot of Toyota Camry's about since they bought theirs. The truth is that they only notice the Toyota Camry's and do not take note of all the other cars they see that are not Toyota Camry's.

"The truth is every belief requires equal amounts of faith."

How do you that is the truth when nothing can be known?! Ooooooh! Don't take that question seriously. I'd just drop my usual line that while ultimately the search for nominal truth may be futile, science has shown that the phenomenal universe is extremely predictable and follows an extreme order and regularity such that it can be accurately described by simple mathematical functions and concepts. It is this understanding that lets us construct monumental bridges and skyscrapers, gives us microwave ovens and TV dinners, allows us to send each other text based messages by sending signals to a satellite in space, and basically everything you see around you. I think science has demonstrated that it has at least some amount of mastery over the phenomenal universe.

Chris, you are just way too intense.

Next time I come to Montreal we should just meet up so I can hear you debate about something. :P

Generally (though not always), the written word doesn't do an argument justice in my opinion.

I'm not as good an orator, because I try to think out what I want to say more adequately than I think I could if put on the spot by people waiting for a spoken response.

Also if you come to Montreal, I'd much rather we drink and be merry than debate. =)

@CA: "Religion can be clearly demonstrated to have an positive effect on the adherents' physical, emotional, and mental well-being." link to data please.

"Also if you come to Montreal, I'd much rather we drink and be merry than debate. =)"


Oh, but what could be merrier than a friendly and spirited debate over a few pints?

:P I'm a University Student and a huge geek. Clashing of ideas really appeals to me.

Well, I'm sure you could get me started if you really wanted to, but I debate far less in person.

I'm also University student, and I knew you were. We still have to organize a face to face game.

@sceptic

It's pretty well documented. I didn't post the link because I had already done so in the other thread. I'll post a couple of extras in a bit though.

Here we go:

This one states that among older individuals lung function declined twice as fast in people who did not attend church regularly as opposed to those who did.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/11/15/163421.shtml

Without moving into an area that neither of us could support with evidence, it's important to bring things back to the original topic. Religions have health benefits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Chrisp
I would point out that any person is likely in their lifetime to see several people being healed and recovering quickly. An important thing to note is that none of these miracles have been beyond physical possibility and simple chance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly not beyond the possibility of, yet the empirical data suggest that something (and I'm not making any claim as to what that something might be) is working in favor of those people who follow a religious lifestyle. With no evidence neither of us can make any authoritative statement as to why this might be. The results are replicated quite frequently though. I've only cited three studies so far, but there are many of them.