Do Healers Believe?

[Bronze Dog]

You said that if someone makes a claim about reality, it should have scientific backing. I was merely citing one example of an attempt to vet religious claims for factual accuracy.

And yet, you posted something about a tyrranical government and seemed to imply that there was some sort of connection between that and my post.

Besides, what's wrong with requesting factual accuracy?

 

[Cyphermage]

And yet, you posted something about a tyrranical government and seemed to imply that there was some sort of connection between that and my post.

Besides, what's wrong with requesting factual accuracy?

The only connection was that the tyrannical government was an example of holding religious claims to factual standards.

Factual accuracy is fine for fact-based things. It is silly for allegory-based things, for reasons which should be obvious.

 

[Bronze Dog]

The only connection was that the tyrannical government was an example of holding religious claims to factual standards.

So, if I were to say "People should be nicer to each other." you'll bring up that old Doctor Who episode featuring a planet where everyone was forced to be happy?

Factual accuracy is fine for fact-based things. It is silly for allegory-based things, for reasons which should be obvious.

In other words, when people tell allegory-based things as if they were fact, we should just smile politely and nod?

 

[Cyphermage]

In other words, when people tell allegory-based things as if they were fact, we should just smile politely and nod?

Generally.

 

[Santa666]

First you said that the FDA was "irrelevant", because drugs weren't involved. You were wrong. The FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims.

Can you show me where the the FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims? To assist you, I have provided a link here to the FDA website where it specifically notes what the FDA regulates.

http://www.fda.gov/comments/regs.html

Next you say the "fraud" is not the religious beliefs, but instead the "claim of medical benefits." Medical benefits provided by God certainly fall under the umbrella of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, stated as such, are not actionable as fraudulent misrepresentation.

It is certainly not actionable under either criminal or civil law to represent that God can heal, or that one is going to wish real hard for God to heal someone.

If faith healers said something like "In 10 minutes, God will perform an appendectomy on you, if you give me $100" or "God has transformed this Kool-Aid into heart medicine, so you no longer need your Lanoxin" you could certainly charge them for practicing medicine without a license.

However, the claims are, as I understand them, the following.

1. God can heal sickness. This obviously follows from the definition of God as all-powerful, and able to do anything not tautologically phrased.

2. People can certainly pray to God, and one of the things they can pray about is for God to heal them of their afflictions, which he may or may not do.

3. People may pray to God to heal the afflictions of others, and according to scripture, placing their hands upon the sick person while doing so is a practice that may be employed.

4. Even through the prior doctrine is part of many religious denominations, most priests and pastors avoid the can of worms which a healing ministry entails, and limit their attempts at healing to praying and conducting religious services for people who request it

5. A very small number of priests and pastors will make touching people while praying for God to heal them a public part of their ministry.

As long as no medical claims are made, people aren't told not to see their doctors, no one is told to stop taking their medicine, and no one is subjected to the practice except those who believe and show up and ask for it, I think it falls under the scope of a protected personal religious practice.

Have you actually witnessed one of these "Miracle Tours" or "Spiritual Revival" events? Perhaps attending one, and really, you just need one, would help you understand what these people are attempting to do. Practically dragging people on stage, telling them with the power of faith and the lord the will be healed, announcing jesus is here and will heal you; these things encourage folks with truly crippling diseases to cause further and perhaps irreversible damage to themselves.

Drug companies claim there medication can do something, they test it, they outline the side effects, then they sell it to the public. Hinn and company do not inform people that dancing and jumping or even walking could permanently or fatally injured them if they are not healed. This is one of the big problems with these types of people.

Cyphermage, what you really need to do, if at all possible, is attend just one of these events.


Santa

 

[Kaylee]

Can you show me where the the FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims? To assist you, I have provided a link here to the FDA website where it specifically notes what the FDA regulates.

http://www.fda.gov/comments/regs.html[

<slightly off topic> I was surprised to see that the FDA regulates food and even pet food. I probably should be embarrassed that I didn't realized that the F stood for "food" but ...

I had heard that the reason the FDA doesn't regulate herbal medicines is because they reguard them as food and they don't regulate food.

Well, obviously they do regulate food (because their web site says they do) -- so what is the real reason they don't regulate herbal medicines? </slightly off topic>

 

[Hellbound]

<slightly off topic> I was surprised to see that the FDA regulates food and even pet food. I probably should be embarrassed that I didn't realized that the F stood for "food" but ...

I had heard that the reason the FDA doesn't regulate herbal medicines is because they reguard them as food and they don't regulate food.

Well, obviously they do regulate food (because their web site says they do) -- so what is the real reason they don't regulate herbal medicines? </slightly off topic>

You're half-right.

They only regulate food for safety, not effectiveness. So herbal suppliments (and dietary supplements) are regulated for safety, but not for thier effectiveness as medicine.

Hopefully that makes sense

 

[Kaylee]

...

Faith healers encourage these people to believe they will be healed, to throw away their medications. Faith healers tell them that only if they truly believe they will be healed and if they take their medications, then they are showing a lack of faith.

Now, don't you see a potential serious problem with this? Do you want to be the physician who has to deal with someone in a diabetic coma or who has suffered a stroke because they stopped taking their medication?

...

Sorry for responding to this late, but I just saw this thread.

I think it would be very interesting if one of the news reporters showed a faith healer (or one of their immediate family members) getting contact lenses, hearing aids, or medicine for diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.

Given the number of faith healers and how common the above health issues are, it shouldn't be difficult. And it would be very interesting to see them try to explain it.

 

[Kaylee]

You're half-right.

They only regulate food for safety, not effectiveness. So herbal suppliments (and dietary supplements) are regulated for safety, but not for thier effectiveness as medicine.

Hopefully that makes sense

Sort of, thanks.

But what about the possibility of people overdosing themselves on the herbal supplements because one can't really be sure what the potency is in any one bottle?

So I don't see how the FDA can avoid regulating the herbal medicine industry more stringently. If one doesn't know what the potency is for some (maybe even many?) of the herbal medicines, how can one say it's safe?

 

[Hellbound]

Sort of, thanks.

But what about the possibility of people overdosing themselves on the herbal supplements because one can't really be sure what the potency is in any one bottle?

So I don't see how the FDA can avoid regulating the herbal medicine industry more stringently. If one doesn't know what the potency is for some (maybe even many?) of the herbal medicines, how can one say it's safe?

That's pretty much been the argument, in part. However, safety is assessed via the usual dosage of the finished product, IIRC. So, you won't get enough to OD if you use the product as directed. However, the bigger issues are the possibility of drug interactions and the fact that these are sold to "help" with medical problems, and haven't been tested to see if they work for those problems.

The whole thign was a result of the dietary suppliments people lobbying for the ruling to regard them as food. The FDA at the time was massively overloaded (still is), and that was a major reduction in workload. Now, I'm recalling most of this from memory, so I probably have some details wrong, but that's the situation as I recall it.

It ain't the right way to do it, IMHO, but that's how it's currently done.

 

[SezMe]

WARNING: Evidence from crappy memory.

I think Huntsman has it right. I believe Orrin Hatch (R-UT) led the legislative effort to exclude herbs and supplements from regulation at the urging of a number of firms that produce this stuff that are located in Utah.

 

[Kaylee]

Thanks Huntsman and SezMe,

Can't say I think its right, but at least I can follow the govt.'s "reasoning" now.

 

[Yahzi]

Sounds like the cosmetics industry, the Feng Shui industry, the Roman Catholic Church, psychic crystals, and about 100,000 other products and organizations.

Now that's a novel defense.

"But your honor, lots of people are getting away with murder!"

"Well, then, off you go..."

Can I defend the KKK by pointing out they are no different from the Nazis? Can I defend Stalin by saying he was no worse than Ghengis Khan? Can I defend Jeffery Dahmer by saying he was no worse than Hannibal Lecter?

 

[SezMe]

Can't say I think its right, but at least I can follow the govt.'s "reasoning" now.

Well, the "reasoning" part is a bit too generous. Just put it down to well-heeled lobbyists and a compliant senator.

 

[Cyphermage]

Now that's a novel defense.

"But your honor, lots of people are getting away with murder!"

"Well, then, off you go..."

Can I defend the KKK by pointing out they are no different from the Nazis? Can I defend Stalin by saying he was no worse than Ghengis Khan? Can I defend Jeffery Dahmer by saying he was no worse than Hannibal Lecter?

Are cosmetics and Feng Shui as bad as mass murder and cannibalism? Only, I would imagine, to very extremist skeptics.

 

[Yahzi]

Are cosmetics and Feng Shui as bad as mass murder and cannibalism? Only, I would imagine, to very extremist skeptics.

This is what makes a woo a woo: the rejection of principle. Not a principle, but the idea of principle. The very idea of formal logic; that "if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C" is true no matter what A,B, and C are. This is what they reject.

(Edit: This website says exactly what I was trying to say here:

Living like this, of course, makes the world look like a dreamy fairy tale, where nothing is necessarily constant from one minute to the next and anything can be as true as anything else at any time.

http://www.dansdata.com/danletters167.htm

)

You suggested that because the Catholic Church was committing fraud, it was ok for other healers to commit fraud.

I provided some very over-the-top examples to illustrate that the notion of defending a evil act by pointing out that other people are doing the same evil act is silly.

You responded by complaining that defrauding people is not as bad as murder.

To accept your argument, we would have to accept that defending something by appealing to similar behaviour is or is not acceptable depending on what the behaviour is.

If it's wrong for healers to defraud people, it's wrong for the Catholic Church to defraud people. Your pointing out that many, many instituitions and individuals also defraud people hardly counts as a defense for healers doing it. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[SezMe]

Are cosmetics and Feng Shui as bad as mass murder and cannibalism? Only, I would imagine, to very extremist skeptics.

BAR THE DOOR! We got us some extremist skeptics among us. They have to be cleaned out, root and branch. Call the NSA. Hell, call the dowsers. Find 'em. Sic the mods on them. Lets scrub this mess up.



Sigh .......

 

[Bronze Dog]

Either Cyphermage is the most unprincipled woo I've ever met to set up such malicious straw men, or he's got the world's worst reading comprehension ability.

In other words, when people tell allegory-based things as if they were fact, we should just smile politely and nod?

Generally.

Unprincipled. He apparently believes that the search for truth has no value.

 

[Yahzi]

Either Cyphermage is the most unprincipled woo I've ever met

I can only assume you have not met very many woos, then.



I don't think CM is particularly unprincipled for a woo; indeed, I find him/her at times refreshingly honest. It's not a character fault we are talking about, but a philosophical position. The essence of woo is that a) the world derives from metaphysical truths, and b) metaphysical truths derive from your own mind.

They're at least half right...

 

[Cyphermage]

You suggested that because the Catholic Church was committing fraud, it was ok for other healers to commit fraud.

I provided some very over-the-top examples to illustrate that the notion of defending a evil act by pointing out that other people are doing the same evil act is silly.

You responded by complaining that defrauding people is not as bad as murder.

To accept your argument, we would have to accept that defending something by appealing to similar behaviour is or is not acceptable depending on what the behaviour is.

If it's wrong for healers to defraud people, it's wrong for the Catholic Church to defraud people. Your pointing out that many, many instituitions and individuals also defraud people hardly counts as a defense for healers doing it. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't agree. I don't believe in nonsense. Clearly, I think not having nonsense is better than having it, but I don't use terms like "right" and "wrong", as they are value judgments, not facts.

Now, there's a difference between not believing in nonsense, and thinking it is ones mission to stamp it out everywhere it exists, or run around declaring it all "wrong."

There's also a difference between not believing in nonsense, and thinking one has the right to substitute ones judgment for someone elses in evaluating their life experiences.

Many are called but few are chosen. Few follow the path of the non-nonsensical life, and fewer still develop any deep insight into the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything. It's not my job to club people on the head, and point in the direction of less nonsense.

Do-gooders, savers, and converts, are to be distrusted. They think they know what's best for everyone, and that the end justifies the means. Hence my question, is it proper to put a sincere faith healer out of business by calling him a crook.

Please discuss amongst yourselves.