A Theology book for Atheists

[+and-then]

On 7/16/2017 at 7:05 PM, Tatetopa said:

That is not a rejoinder for proving your point or winning friends.  We seem to know a lot about Yahweh from his own testimony.  He is exactly the sort of superhero God that atheists  have rejected as implausible.  He is not the god of gaps mentioned in the book review.  Thanks for offering this up.

 

True, but it's also easy to understand a person becoming defensive when being so casually dismissed.  My disagreements with some of the Atheists here is far less about their beliefs than about their superior attitudes when stating the belief.  Respect has to go BOTH ways.

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, eight bits said:

Mr W

That's a nice article. The on-topic message is that Kaptchuk's work provides no basis for assigning the benefits of placebo exclusively to false beliefs. So far as has been measured, false beliefs, indeterminate beliefs and true beliefs are all conducive to elicitation of  placebo effects.

It follows that we needn't overrule our critical judgment or "divide our mind" in order to use our own bodies' resources against illness and discomfort, in concert with whatever else we might bring to bear. The finer points of Kaptchuk's research would quickly lead us far from the OP's review.

 Of course but, then who gets to determine what is a false belief, and what is a true belief, where no evidences exist to determine the factual truth.

It is BELIEF (or faith) true, false or indeterminate, which is the key.  If  belief makes/generates  a physical improvement ,ie belief or confidence in shiny, modern medical equipment in a doctor's room actually improves patient outcomes, then the belief is self fulfilling and not  false.

 Not sure about not dividing your mind.

How do you generate a belief in the efficacy of anything if you don't believe in its  physical efficacy?  Why, by believing that belief, in itself, is efficacious.

 DOn't believe that god exists or can help you? Doesnt matter. IF you can believe that  belief in god is efficacious, then you can,  logically and rationally, construct a belief, purely to gain the efficacy conferred by belief.   Human minds are quite capable of this sort of thinking.

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yeah, belief  and a generous dose of holy dopamine can work wonders. "It is thy Faith(and the placebo effect) that has made thee whole."

In spiritual terms  faith is both a physical influence on human healing AND  effective as a placebo  it actually alters brain chemistry and neurology and thus physiological responses. 

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 Of course but, then who gets to determine what is a false belief, and what is a true belief, where no evidences exist to determine the factual truth.

It is BELIEF (or faith) true, false or indeterminate, which is the key.  If  belief makes/generates  a physical improvement ,ie belief or confidence in shiny, modern medical equipment in a doctor's room actually improves patient outcomes, then the belief is self fulfilling and not  false.

 Not sure about not dividing your mind.

How do you generate a belief in the efficacy of anything if you don't believe in its  physical efficacy?  Why, by believing that belief, in itself, is efficacious.

 DOn't believe that god exists or can help you? Doesnt matter. IF you can believe that  belief in god is efficacious, then you can,  logically and rationally, construct a belief, purely to gain the efficacy conferred by belief.   Human minds are quite capable of this sort of thinking.

IMO, What it shows is how highly susceptible humans are to suggestion, how easily they will believe things on suggestion, and how they will spin their experiences to support their beliefs, especially if they have a strong history of taking things on faith or denying reality for ex: a belief that placebos have been shown to have healing properties isn't much of a stretch. The article even says the way they advertised for the study was suggestive ( biased).

So, yes one can convince themselves of anything, yes humans are highly subjective and yes studies can be biased.

. 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Sherapy