What if your life (seems) to go better with prayer?

[Minoosh]

I think you're brave to bring this up here Minoosh. From what you are describing I say go for it. I see nothing wrong with praying if it helps you or anyone else. Like you said, you aren't doing it in lieu of other actions.

Thanks SG. I know you don't have any patience for woo so I'm pleased that you're OK with these sorts of rituals. I wouldn't dream of foisting it off on someone else, but if I'm at, say, a funeral Mass and the padre seems to expect prayers, I actually do earnestly engage.

It's not a regular part of my life anymore. When it was, life seemed to go better. It's a simple ritual, saying "please" in the morning and "thank you" at night. It helps occasionally. More when I do it regularly.

 

[Minoosh]

Yeah, I should have just called child protection services.

Why didn't you?

You had a relative in a bad situation. Is that supposed to prove that therapy is useless?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

It's supposed to show that you can talk to someone for ever, and not solve anything whatsoever that way. As long as it's just you doing the talking -- whether by virtue of the other person being imaginary or just not asking any uncomfortable questions -- you can rationalize anything, whether it's staying in a bad situation, or keeping doing something stupid, or whatever.

Edit:

Not the least because that's how the brain works: it doesn't seem to distinguish between sources for any information. Even just saying something yourself is actually just strengthening the engram (association in your head,) not helping solve anything or organize your thoughts in any meaningful way.

In a study people were asked what their political views were, and then were asked to write for exercise sake, write an essay defending the polar opposite of it. You know, just as a BS exercise. After two weeks their views were already shifting towards what they wrote. Even knowing that the source was just yourself taking the piss, the brain doesn't distinguish that as a source to discard. It goes into the same pile of associations that form your world model.

Hell, even using an engram strengthens it. If you decided to every time go right when you enter a shop, for no particular reason, after a while you start doing it automatically. Just the fact that that "enter shop => go right" association keeps getting accessed makes it stronger.

So, yeah, asking someone to just sit and listen why you keep talking about why you keep doing X, or why you don't do Y, or why you don't get out of situation Z, and not ask any uncomfortable questions, isn't them helping you sort out your thoughts. It's them being an enabler while you hammer those rationalizations into your head even harder.

Edit 2:

Also, no amount of talking will change the chemical balance in your brain, that affects the expected outcomes. So IF the root problem preventing you from dealing with some situation, no amount of talking about it will change that. Even if you somehow avoided strengthening some bad engrams -- which you can't -- at the end of the day the voting in your head as to whether to do something or not, will still be biased in the same direction. If that scale is biased towards "nah, that's hopeless", without some way of bringing it to the centre, it stays that way. And talking doesn't change that balance.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"Prayer is just a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms" - Terry Pratchett

But that doesn't mean some people don't find it helpful.

And wasn't it Mark Twain said it was like whining to God to change the laws of the Universe?

Some people find comfort in alcohol. Not that I recommend it either.

 

[8enotto]

I grew up in a less than ideal home, one had to think for himself or herself and decide because one or the other parent would be unhappy.

With me both got nothing in the way of religious stuff.

We were told prayer would bring us answers, for me it was words dropping on the floor and withering away.
But when I decided and acted I got results. Not always what I tried for but real results anyway.
It wasn't hard to see which was solid.

Only once as an adult I resorted to praying to find a solution, and as expected nothing came of it. Then I pulled my head from my own backside and fixed whatever it was going wrong.
It wasn't hopeless, it was that I wasn't trying the right thing.

There are things well beyond our control and they are few compared to the things we can change.

If we are willing to make some sacrifices.

 

[Minoosh]

As long as it's just you doing the talking -- whether by virtue of the other person being imaginary or just not asking any uncomfortable questions -- you can rationalize anything, whether it's staying in a bad situation, or keeping doing something stupid, or whatever.

I think you're extrapolating too much from one anecdote. Also I suspect you have have dated views about psychotherapy.

Also, no amount of talking will change the chemical balance in your brain, that affects the expected outcomes.

Everything changes the chemical balance in your brain. If I feel bad, and I call a friend, and then I feel better, what changed? My brain chemistry. I don't know whether that's cause or effect - maybe my friend made me feel better, or maybe I was already feeling better, which made me reach out to a friend. But in either case the chemistry of my brain changed, or I wouldn't feel better.

Antidepressants are statistically better than placebo for moderate to severe depression, but there can be a lot of trial and error trying to find something that helps. Perhaps your doctor's empathy and persistence eventually make you feel better. But antidepressants are ineffective for minor depression.

In moderate to severe cases:

Without antidepressants: About 20 to 40 out of 100 people who took a placebo noticed an improvement in their symptoms within six to eight weeks.
With antidepressants: About 40 to 60 out of 100 people who took an antidepressant noticed an improvement in their symptoms within six to eight weeks.

So about as 50 percent success rate. The gains are described as "usually modest" and it can take months to years to get the chemistry right. That doesn't mean one should stop trying, of course.

And talking doesn't change that balance.

Everything changes that balance and usually medication is used in conjunction in talk therapy. I'm sure there are unsuitable therapists out there who enable their patients stay in ruts. I don't think your anecdote proves anything.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm talking about long term changes. Short term, sure, your feeling better IS a change in chemical balance. However, those are the operative words: short term.

The very presence of those chemical signals that make you feel happier, triggers the release of the enzymes that remove them from your system. E.g., the very presence of serotonin, noradrenaline or dopamine in your system triggers the release of the MAO-A (Monoamine oxidase A) enzyme that metabolizes those right out of your system, while dopamine also triggers the release of MAO-B, which also metabolizes it right off.

So basically sure, your chemical balance changes and feel better for the moment, but then you return to the same baseline. No amount of talking will make that baseline level change.

Edit: if talking could actually change your brain's production of, or sensitivity to, those enzymes, we'd use talking to treat Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. Both of those are linked to elevated levels of MAO-B in the brain, which drives the dopamine levels into the ground. So, yeah, if you could just talk your brain into changing its chemical balance baseline, we'd stop subsidizing Alzheimer and Parkinson medication for old people and tell them to just go talk to someone about it. Treatment for those two in old people is a huge chunk of the costs of health insurance, so yeah, if we could just pay someone to talk to a whole group of them once a week instead, we would.

 

[Steve]

Question not necessarily directed at the OP. How would a person tell if their life goes better with prayer, seems or otherwise? There is no alternate life to compare to to see a difference.

 

[bruto]

Question not necessarily directed at the OP. How would a person tell if their life goes better with prayer, seems or otherwise? There is no alternate life to compare to to see a difference.

How your life is going is at least partly subjective. If you feel it's going better, it sort of is.

 

[Chanakya]

Actually, if you're pretty much sure that your life's going significantly better with prayer, then the thing to do, before all else, is lobby to re-institute the million dollar prize. So that your life can, on top of going significantly better, also go fabulously better.

 

[Chanakya]

... In a study people were asked what their political views were, and then were asked to write for exercise sake, write an essay defending the polar opposite of it. You know, just as a BS exercise. After two weeks their views were already shifting towards what they wrote. Even knowing that the source was just yourself taking the piss, the brain doesn't distinguish that as a source to discard. It goes into the same pile of associations that form your world model ...

Sort of like how brainwashing works. Sometimes people merely pretend to go along, but very often they actually buy in to whatever they were being brainsahed on, and continue to hold the idea/ideology even after the physical/psychological duress, that was the instrument of the brainwashing, is removed, for good.


... This study, above, would you have a link?

 

[Thermal]

Question not necessarily directed at the OP. How would a person tell if their life goes better with prayer, seems or otherwise? There is no alternate life to compare to to see a difference.

I take it as meaning that you may feel lost or alone, but after prayer, , you feel reassured, or guided. Like there's someone in your corner with you.

 

[Steve]

I take it as meaning that you may feel lost or alone, but after prayer, , you feel reassured, or guided. Like there's someone in your corner with you.

I have spent a few minutes thinking about this. I have to admit that it is a concept that I am struggling to understand. I am not disagreeing with your post. It is just not registering in my brain as a logical concept.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm talking about long term changes. Short term, sure, your feeling better IS a change in chemical balance. However, those are the operative words: short term.

The very presence of those chemical signals that make you feel happier, triggers the release of the enzymes that remove them from your system.

That's feedback. That's normal. One possible solution is to keep doing the behaviors that make you feel better short-term. (That don't involve self-harm.) I feel better after making my bed. I try not to give up just because I'll have to do it again tomorrow.

No amount of talking will make that baseline level change.

I don't think your information is up to date. From Forbes:

Research Again Finds That Talk Therapy Can Change The Brain

And while we know the broad outlines of tinkering with neurotransmitters, according to the NHS, It's not known exactly how antidepressants work. Sadly, chances are almost even that a given drug won't work. Or it can stop working. Or it can have serious side effects, including suicidal ideation. Or the patient's depression is not severe enough to benefit from medication.

Depression sometimes resolves itself spontaneously. How? Why? I don't think we know.

And, also from NHS:

While antidepressants can treat the symptoms of depression, they do not always address its causes. This is why they're usually used in combination with therapy to treat more severe depression or other mental health conditions.

IOW, they still advise you to talk to someone.

Edit: if talking could actually change your brain's production of, or sensitivity to, those enzymes, we'd use talking to treat Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. Both of those are linked to elevated levels of MAO-B in the brain, which drives the dopamine levels into the ground.

Who said talking was a cure all? It isn't going to undo organic brain damage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not always the case, Minoosh about treatment for depression, or about the underlying causes.

SSRIs specifically increase serotonin in the nerve synapses in the brain. It's not so mysterious that the underlying mechanisms of chronic depression (not situational depression which is another way of saying grieving).

We don't know all the things going on in the brain of chronically depressed people. There are probably multiple causes. But it's not all that mysterious.

We don't have a cure for hypertension, but we know what's going on and can treat it.

 

[Minoosh]

That's not always the case, Minoosh about treatment for depression, or about the underlying causes.

SSRIs specifically increase serotonin in the nerve synapses in the brain. It's not so mysterious that the underlying mechanisms of chronic depression (not situational depression which is another way of saying grieving).

We don't know all the things going on in the brain of chronically depressed people. There are probably multiple causes. But it's not all that mysterious.

We don't have a cure for hypertension, but we know what's going on and can treat it.

I don't mean to be defeatist. I know if a drug works only 50 percent of patients that's still clinically significant. My main point was that the claim that talk therapy never helped anyone is not supported by compelling evidence.

 

[Minoosh]

I take it as meaning that you may feel lost or alone, but after prayer, , you feel reassured, or guided. Like there's someone in your corner with you.

That's not what happens to me. If I'm dreading a situation I might send up a flare - "please help me deal with this." Next thing I know, I'm coping with the situation better than I expected to. Then, it seems only polite today say, "Thank you."

If repeated it is reinforced.

I don't expect this to be compelling evidence to anyone else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't mean to be defeatist. I know if a drug works only 50 percent of patients that's still clinically significant. My main point was that the claim that talk therapy never helped anyone is not supported by compelling evidence.

Talk therapy is very helpful for some people. The goals include helping the person have better insight into their behavior/emotions and learning coping skills.

My main contention was with this:

according to the NHS, It's not known exactly how antidepressants work.

We do know how they work.

It seems the NHS doesn't like the conclusion they cite:

It's not known exactly how antidepressants work.

It's thought they work by increasing levels of chemicals in the brain called neurotransmitters. Certain neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and noradrenaline, are linked to mood and emotion.

So the evidence is not certain enough for them?

This is typical of a lot of medical sources not wanting to address mental illness the same way they approach other physical ailments.

... While antidepressants can treat the symptoms of depression, they do not always address its causes. This is why they're usually used in combination with therapy to treat more severe depression or other mental health conditions.

I'm not buying that at all. Therapy is very useful for many patients. But for others it isn't.

But claiming therapy addresses the causes while psych meds** don't? That doesn't make sense to me.



** We don't have meds for every kind of mental illness and some of the older meds were atrocious, just like ECT was.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not what happens to me. If I'm dreading a situation I might send up a flare - "please help me deal with this." Next thing I know, I'm coping with the situation better than I expected to. Then, it seems only polite today say, "Thank you."

If repeated it is reinforced.

I don't expect this to be compelling evidence to anyone else.

I think this is great. If that works for you, why would anyone insist therapy is better?

It's like alcoholism, for some people finding God helps them abstain. For others going to AA helps but they don't need the God belief. And for others, they just quit. Still others relapse repeatedly or never quit and then they die.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I don't mean to be defeatist. I know if a drug works only 50 percent of patients that's still clinically significant. My main point was that the claim that talk therapy never helped anyone is not supported by compelling evidence.

That is exactly the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof. The one making the claim of the form "X exists" or "Y happens" (the two being trivially equivalent), a.k.a., a positive claim, is the one who needs to present the evidence. Saying that you're right about such a claim because the negative wasn't supported by compelling evidence is nonsense.

I mean, watch me do the same: the black dragon Alduin exists and he's going to return to devour the world, including Heaven and Hell. And I know that's true, because none of the naysayers claiming he doesn't exist has presented any compelling evidence to support that.

Now I realize that it's not easy to show that talking to someone isn't just placebo effect. I do realize the problem of having a control group who only think they're talking to someone about it, or for that matter going double-blind about THAT. It's not as easy as giving one group the new antibiotic pill and the other group just pressed lactic acid pills. In the case of pills, neither the patients nor the one giving them the pill can tell the difference, so double-blind works. It's not as easy to make someone just think they're in a group therapy session, when they aren't.

Fair enough.

But that still means you don't have evidence for the positive claim. And that's it.

It doesn't change how the burden of proof works. You don't get to then claim to be right because nobody proved the negative.