Re: Belief and the Brain

Would this validate the Catholic church's centuries long practice of
promoting a trade in relics and shreds of clothing? I'll bet countless
people had faith in touching those things too! There are a few
scriptures in which somebody was healed 'from a distance' like the
Roman centurion's servant (the commander's faith stood for the
servant?) Or if somebody wanted to insist that it is only faith /in
the name of Jesus/ that counts, then there is Iain's 38 year man who
only later learns it was Jesus that healed him. I love to speculate on
the example where Jesus spits on the blind man's eyes, discovers he can
see -- but not very clearly, and then lays hands on him again. What's
that all about? Followup corrections? This would certainly match the
theory that healing processes are sought within natural parameters and
limitations, and not by zappage from on high. I think the miracle's not
done in his hometown because of their lack of faith has already been
brought up. All in all, it seems there is a big enough variety of
examples to leave just about everyone unsettled if they want it all to
fit within one favorite theory!

--merv

jack syme wrote:

> */Mastthew: 19/* As Jesus and the disciples were going to the
> official's home, */20/* a woman who had had a hemorrhage for twelve
> years came up behind him. She touched the fringe of his robe,
> */21/* for she thought, "If I can just touch his robe, I will be
> healed." */22/* Jesus turned around and said to her, "Daughter, be
> encouraged! Your faith has made you well." And the woman was healed at
> that moment.
>
>
> Her belief, her faith, made her well.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Iain Strachan <mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> *To:* Bill Hamilton <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Mervin Bitikofer <mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net> ;
> drsyme@cablespeed.com <mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com> ;
> asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2006 4:39 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Belief and the Brain
>
> I'm finding this discussion very interesting indeed.
>
> I think the problem with the placebo effect is that it is based on
> belief in an untruth. A sugar-coated inert pill is NOT supposed
> to have any direct chemical effect on you. But in a
> double-blinded clinical trial, you have a half-truth, you know
> that there is a 50% chance you'll be getting a real drug. That
> half-belief/half-truth can help to make chemical changes happen
> and trigger powerful self-healing mechanisms in the body.
>
> However, with Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, I think in a way the
> same idea (positive thoughts and attitude assisting in healing) is
> exploited in a more honest way. The premise behind it is that
> negative thoughts, beliefs and attitudes cause changes in mood,
> stress levels, etc that may in turn give rise to physical
> symptoms, chemical imbalances etc. If the negative beliefs can be
> challenged and replaced with positive ones, then healing can
> occur, and better coping strategies found in the case of
> depressives. A simple example is if your boss snaps at you. You
> could follow a negative thought pattern and say "My boss is angry
> with me because I'm a useless individual and I'll never do any
> good". Or you could argue "Maybe it's nothing to do with me,
> maybe my boss is just having a bad day".
>
> There are some concerns I have here. It's about replacing
> negative beliefs with positive ones (I'm useless vs my boss is
> having a bad day). But that isn't the same as saying you're
> replacing falsehood with truth. Maybe you ARE a useless
> individual who needs to pull their socks up.
>
> Nonetheless, I believe you see this kind of principle operating in
> the Bible. In Psalm 143, for example, David first pours out his
> misery "My spirit grows faint within me; my heart within me is
> dismayed", but then remembers what God has done in the past "I
> remember the days of long ago; I meditate on all Your works, and
> consider what your hands have done. I stretch out my hands to
> you..." The negative gets replaced with the memories of God, and
> hope for the future (let the morning bring me word of your
> unfailing love).
>
> So in conclusion, maybe it's like this. Perhaps there is
> scientific evidence (the success and widespread use of Cognitive
> Behavioural Therapy, and the power of the placebo effect), that
> belief can cause healing (and negative belief can cause damage).
> The problem is getting patients to accept CBT as the treatment -
> "oh, you're saying it's all in my mind. How dare you be so
> patronising, etc". I like to imagine what the lame man by the
> pool in John 5 might have said if in that frame of mind. "What do
> you mean? Pick up my mat and walk??? I've been sitting here for
> THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS!!! Don't you think I'd have gotten up if I
> could? Oh. I get it, you're saying it's all in my mind, that I'm
> just imagining it. Well you know what you can do with your fancy
> ideas". In contrast, the Bible records that the man immediately
> got up and walked. I'm not saying that this wasn't a supernatural
> miracle, but just the placebo effect, but it doesn't take away the
> main point that the man must have heard Jesus, heard the authority
> he had, and BELIEVED he could get up and walk.
>
> Regards,
> Iain
>
> On 1/13/06, *Bill Hamilton* <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com
> <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> */Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net
> <mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>>/* wrote:
>
> Can "positive thinking" or "placebo effect" still be a
> benefit to somebody who is trying to evaluate it in an
> objective context? That is… can I 'choose to believe'
> something as opposed to 'really believing' it and still
> enjoy the positive consequences of the believer? This
> may completely derail the direction you might have
> intended, Dr. Syme, and I apologize if it does – perhaps I
> should make my own subject thread. But the research you
> discuss below seems to me to touch on a rumbling
> undercurrent of modern thought.
> <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->
> Many may wish not to tread here – b ut I'll raise a
> question that is openly voiced by critical
> non-Christians, and may lurk more deeply in the minds of
> some believers. Is the 'placebo effect' a hostile
> explanation that discredits the testimony of Christian
> experience, undermining the convictions of would-be
> followers?
>
> Bill Hamilton:
> When I was a new Christian I had trouble with the concept
> of insanity. Modern medicine seems to view it (or at least
> some of it) as due to chemical imbalances, while Scripture
> seems to point the finger at demon possession. I finally
> concluded that perhaps that's how demons work: by causing
> chemical imbalances. Could not a similar explanation be
> applied here? That when we pray for someone to be healed
> and the individual is healed, it may be due to the placebo
> effect -- operating under the sovereignty of God . That
> is, in some instances God specifically ordains the
> chemical activity normally associated with the placebo
> effect. In instances where there is no prayer and an
> individual is helped by a placebo, perhaps this is an
> example of common grace.
>
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos
> Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/*http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/evt=38087/*http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//page?.file=calendar_splash.html&.dir=>.
> Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------
>
Received on Fri Jan 13 20:49:46 2006