Faith Healing

I did cover this before, but someone asked me to write about this because he saw a faith healing happen right in front of his eyes.

I’m sure it would be hard for normal people to deny God’s existence when they see someone being cured from an incurable disease.

In just the same way, it would be hard for someone to deny the existence of magic if he sees a magician floating (see David Blaine) 2 feet in the air in the middle of the street. Most people will say: “That’s impossible. It cannot be done! It must be magic!”

But these magicians do not claim to be using magic. They know full well that what they are doing is mere illusion. And I think the same can be said of other “supernatural” events. The difference is that people claim that other “supernatural” events are the work of God/Allah/Chi/Positive Energy/Prayer/Magic.

What I’d like to know is, why haven’t any publications or studies been done on the effects of faith healing? Faith Healing is always hearsay or something “spontaneous” which happens at a planned gathering of 100% believers. It is never analyzed. And in the rare case that it is analyzed, they find nothing.

Here, I’d like to repeat the story of the Shaman. In Africa, many people believe in Witch Doctors and Voodoo and Magic. This is a true story:
A doctor I know was working in such parts of Africa. Let’s call him Gary. A man came to Gary and told Gary that he (the other man) was cursed by a shaman. Gary obviously does not believe in Voodoo, so he chased the man away. The next day, the man died of unknown causes. Gary learnt his lesson. A few weeks later, another “cursed” man came to him. Gary drew some of the man’s blood and threw colorants into the blood when the man wasn’t looking. The blood turned black and Gary said:
“This is the evil spirit. I have drawn it out of you. Go home and burn this vial.”
The man did not die of the curse.

Believer’s Translation:
A shaman cursed a man and put an evil spirit into the man’s body. The doctor used modern medicine to draw the evil spirit out of the man. The man who got the spirit removed, survived, and the one who didn’t died. THAT IS YOUR PROOF!

Real Translation:
A shaman told a man that he was going to die and the man believed the shaman. This created a placebo effect (see placebo). A placebo effect can be summed up by these words: It is the subject that has the subject-centred response. It is not the administered substance that generates the observed effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo - read this for a slightly more in-depth explanation.

The human brain is very powerful. It is NOT supernatural, however. It is simply an organ which controls the rest of the body. If the brain thinks that the heart will stop beating if a shaman curses him, then the chances are the heart will stop beating. The brain does control the heart, after all. It does not, unfortunately work the other way around. If, for example, you think that you can regrow organs, then the chances are you will never regrow them, no matter how hard you believe. The brain is only so powerful.

This is a very good website:
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

Read it. It explains the whole “faith healing” thing very clearly. As well as everything else about religion that is stupid.

The same person, who asked me about faith healing, also asked me:
“Don’t you think your website is a bit blasphemous?”

And my answer is:
Of course. The whole point of this website is to be blasphemous. Read this comic:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060222/cartoon20060222.gif

It sums up the situation very effectively. Think about it this way. I’ll assume you are a Christian. How would you feel about saying: “Zeus does not exist”? What about Ra? Odin? Allah, Hare Krishna, Shiva, Jupiter, Apollo, Ganesh? All these are Gods. There are people who believe in some of these Gods. But if you say “Ganesh, an elephant with 8 arms, does not exist,” then you are committing blasphemy in the eyes of 500 million Hindi.

I feel the same way about your god as you do about all the other gods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blaine

Theologians vs Science

I'll keep this blog up and edit it whenever I think of something new. It's a list of all the people who the religious people (people who believe in the literal truth of the bible) disagree with.

But first, let's define this antagonist:
This person believes that the earth and the universe is 6000-10 000 years old, that life was instantly created, that Mary was made pregnant through a holy spirit, that evolution does not happen, that the entire world was flooded 4500 years ago, that miracles happen.

I don't really have a problem with people who see the bible as figurative and believe in God, but also in science.

First List:
Let's make this a hypothetical boxing match. Each member will be called out, and a "problem" with that member will be listed.

In the big blue corner we have:
Biologists, divided into several teams:
Microbiologists, (thinks that diseases can adapt and evolve)
Geneticists, (see above)
Zoologists, (thinks we share the same ancestors as other animals)
Biochemists, (thinks all beings with the same ancestors have similar biochemical processes in their bodies)
Cell Biologists, (thinks all beings with common ancestors have similar cells)
Molecular biologists, (see Geneticists)
Morphologists, (thinks similar forms in species shows common ancestors)
Botanists, (thinks plants have 50% similar DNA to humans, therefore common ancestors)
Ornithologists, (thinks birds evolved from dinosaurs)
Naturalists, (thinks the world can be explained through physical laws)
Evolutionists, (thinks evolution is true)
Ecologists, (thinks the earth's atmosphere is the result of billions of years of life and change)
Physiologists, (see Morphologists)
Neurophysiologists, (thinks all creatures with similar brains shows common ancestors)
Palaeontologists, (thinks dinosaurs are millions of years old)
Physicians, (thinks you can test drugs on animals which will work on humans)
Entomologists, (thinks insects are billions of years old)
Ichthyologist, (thinks fish are billions of years old)
Biophysicist, (see microbiologists)
Immunologists, (thinks virus's, such as flu, adapts to modern medicine)

And then we have:
Archaeologists, (thinks humans are older than 10 000 years old)
Anthropologists, (see above)
Astronomers, (thinks the universe and stars are billions of years old)
Astrophysicists, (see above)
Geologists, (thinks the earth is 4,5 billion years old)
Chemists, (see Biochemists)
Mathematicians (thinks pi is NOT 3)
Engineers, (thinks humans cannot walk on water and should build bridges)
Psychologists, (thinks humans share common ancestors with mice and behavorial patterns should be similar)
Etymologists, (thinks all languages have a tendency to change, and was not because humans tried to build a tower to heaven)

And in the small red corner we have:
Theologians (thinks Science cannot explain mysteries of life)
Uneducated People (does not think) as their main source of income
Some Slightly Educated People (thinks they can trust Theologians more than anyone else)

P.S. If anyone has ideas/requests for a change in the list, please tell me. I'll probably update it every now and then

P.P.S. If there is anyone out there who is willing to antagonise me, please come out fighting. Thank you. (By antagonise, I simply mean to disagree, and to debate)

Second List:
I'm also including a list of all the most respectable and learned people of both sides of the argument. This time I won't write the "problem" but the history/strengths.

In the big blue corner we have: (most of these, including Einstein, are atheists or agnostics)
Albert Einstein (Won Nobel Prize for physics 1921, changed the world)
Richard Feynman (Made a huge contribution to nuclear power, played bongo drums)
Richard Dawkins (redefined how we thought about evolution, has leet debating skills)
Stephen Hawkins (

This list is going to be too long... I'm just going to paste a link to all Nobel Prize winners of physics, chemistry and physiology and medicine. And you can go look for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates

And in the small red corner we have:
Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science, 1875, tried to steal money from the state)
Michael Behe (Biochemist, admitted in court, under oath, that there is no peer reviewed proof for Intelligent Design)

... I'm really looking for respectable people here, but it is extremely hard to find anyone. All I can find are people like "Dr." Kent Hovind (a high school teacher in jail for $600 000 worth of tax fraud and 2 charges of assault and battery) and other uneducated people or reverends who studied the bible and philosophy, and knows nothing about science. Can someone help me?

Third List
What the two groups have done for us in the past 2000 years. Or rather: What we should be grateful for.

In the big blue corner we have:
Electronics:
Medical Equipment (pacemaker, X-ray, Ultrasound, Life Support Systems)
Lights
Alarm Clocks
Microphones
Speakers
Mp3 players
Computers
Cellphones and Wireless Telephones
Large scale and cheap long range communication (automatic servers)
The Internets
Wristwatches
Television
Remotes
GPS
Air Conditioning
Accurate Weather Prediction
Automatic Credit and Debit Cards
Coffee Machines
Automatic Doors
Half of A Modern Car's Workings
Gaming Systems (Xbox, Playstation, Gameboy)
etc...

Medicine and Sanitation:
At least half of humans on earth are alive because of modern medicine.

Food:
Thanks to modern science, we have processed food and genetically modified crops which feeds (if properly managed...) the 6 Billion people on earth.
Delicious food

Transportation, Communication, Globalisation:
Because of these, I can eat sushi (Japanese) at a table made in Czech Republic and designed in Denmark. I can drive a German car that was manufactured in South Africa to a school which teaches me about American and European inventions and discoveries at a University, the idea of which came from the Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago.
Airplanes
Cars
Telephones
Internets
Boats

Entertainment:
Mostly electronics for television, computers, cellphones, gaming systems, cameras, microphones, radio.

Education:
Because of Education, we have all of the above.

Democracy:
A system governed by people voted by the people. Not by reverends and kings who were "chosen by God."

And in the small red corner we have:
Um...
We can be grateful to theologians for reading and interpreting the bible for us. We all know how big and hard it is to actually read it ourselves.
Inspiring speeches! No wait.... those can be done by anyone...
Morals! No... I destroyed that in my previous blog didn't I?

Philosophy perhaps? But didn't Aristotle, Plato and others do that as well?

Can someone tell me what theologians have done for us that science cannot?

Confidence in Ignorance

In this post, I’m exploring the reasons behind religious people’s confidence, despite their lack of evidence.

Or rather, the oft quoted line:
“Believe as a child.”

Why do religious people (from here on referred to as Christians) think it is a good thing to trust in something you have absolutely no idea about?
Example:
“I believe that when I die, I will go to heaven.”
“What makes you think this is true?”
“I have to believe like a child.”
“Yes... but what made you believe this in the first place?”
“Jesus himself said that (bible quote)”

So... the only way to get into heaven is to believe without proof. What this implies is that there is no proof, no assurance or even any reason to believe in heaven (or God or Jesus). When I was in Sunday school, they used very effective and imaginative stories to tell us that we have to believe in Jesus/God/Heaven, even though we can’t see him. The church indoctrinated us to believe in things even if, no, especially if there is no proof.

I cannot believe I (and many others) did not realise this sooner. If they teach us:
“God is unknowable. We don’t know what he/she/it is like. There is no way to understand God; therefore we won’t. That’s it people. Oh, and we help people and teach manners and life lessons.” I would probably see the benefit of such a church. I wouldn’t mind attending a service or two for inspiration, and maybe donating money. But the problem with this “church” is that it won’t last very long and it won’t be able to control people as well as a Christian or Muslim church.

The reason that the most powerful religion in the world is Christianity is because of a kind of evolution. Survival of the fittest.

Think about it this way:

If there is a church which has good ideas, but does not control its flock (call them sheep, because it complements their mindset) very effectively, this church will fail in a short period of time. A church with bad ideas (think about any cult) which is good at controlling its sheep, will probably last longer then the one with good ideas.

Christianity and Islam are very similar. The reason for this is that the recipe they are following is very effective:

Draw the sheep with stories about being nice to others
Indoctrinate the sheep to think that lack of proof is a good thing
Control the sheep with somewhat obvious laws
Mix in a few stupid laws which increases your control over them
Justify everything by saying that it came from a holy book
Accuse all non-sheep of being wolves out to kill the sheep

It’s slightly more complicated than that, but I think you should get the idea at this point. Christianity and Islam and other major religions did not survive and spread so effectively because any of them is the “one true religion.” They survived because they are good at controlling their sheep.

And this joins with my first question:

Why do Christians think it is a good idea to trust in something they have absolutely no proof of?

And this is the most obvious answer I can think of:

If Christians weren’t sure about themselves, despite their lack of evidence, they would not have survived. The Christians who had questioned their beliefs or was uncertain, probably “died out.” The Spanish Inquisition and the Roman Catholic Church in general helped a lot on this subject. They literally tortured any person who was unsure. They guided the “evolution” and strengthened faith.

This belief in something without proof is what people call faith. Without faith, a Christian is not a Christian.

“Believe as a child,” is a very simple summation of religion.

till, I cannot get my mind around this concept.

People think that you should not only believe that there is a God without question (that idea I can understand) but also the story behind the Ark, Moses, Mary, etc should not be questioned. In fact, anything a reverend or bible says is right. And if someone or something seems to contradict the reverend, then the reverend is right. I’m surprised there aren’t more corrupt reverends who abuse their power for personal gain. I suppose the 7 year course in ethics and philosophy and bibliophily helped them fear divine retribution for such heinous crimes.

Reverends are people too. They might claim that God speaks directly through them, but they still prepare speeches and quotes from the bible and examples and sometimes make mistakes. If God was speaking through a reverend, I doubt he would make a language error.

I’d just like to finish this post with a very appropriate quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

- Epicurus