Thursday, October 09, 2008

On the Power of Faith

Those of you who know me, or have read my blog, know that I am not a religious person. Logic, consistency, objectivity and provability are the standards by which I try (albeit at times unsuccessfully) to live my life. Those standards, are frequently at odds with those of religion, which value faith above all other things.

This predilection for the scientific perspective has naturally led me into one heated discussion after another with my more religious friends. These discussions invariably end badly, with me disappointed in my friend/opponent’s inability to see the inconsistencies in their faith while they are equally frustrated and sometimes angry with, what they see as, my patronizing attitude towards their most, cherished beliefs.

So, rather than once again reviewing my litany of Biblical inconsistencies, mocking the biography of Joseph Smith, or trying to explain the criteria for scientific proof, I have decided to examine the question of faith from a decidedly different angle.

Let us first stipulate that although it is possible (albeit, in my opinion very unlikely) for one, particular religion to be literally true, it is impossible for all religions to be literally true.

If the tenants of Hinduism are correct about reincarnation then Judaism must be false in it’s belief in only one life on earth . If, as the Jews believe, the Messiah has not yet appeared, then Christianity must be false as it is based on the divinity of Jesus. If Jesus was, as the Christians believe, the last great prophet, then the followers of Mohammed must be following a fraud.

If one is true, the others must be false. Consequently, since none of the religions of the world represent a majority of the religious population, it follows that the vast majority of religious people on the planet believe in a doctrine which is not true.

However, the fact that most religious people on the planet must be wrong does not effect the intensity of their faith.

The question is, “Is it possible that something which is not literally true can have real and transformative value?”

Here’s a story.

A Jew, a Muslim, a Christian and a Buddhist walk into an AA meeting. All four men have struggled with alcoholism for many years. All four men have tried, over and over again, to fight their addiction with will power and all have failed. All four men begin the twelve step program by admitting they are powerless over their alcoholism. All four men turn their problem over to a higher power. All four men define that higher power differently. Yet, all four manage to do something they have never been able to do on their own.

They stop drinking.

And who gets the credit for this transformation? God? Buddha? Allah? Jesus? If Jesus helped the Christian quit drinking who helped the Buddhist? Who helped the Jew? They cannot all exist and yet all four men found help.

So, what gave these men the power to do what they couldn’t do on their own?

Faith did. Not truth. Not God. Faith.

The Placebo Effect

The placebo effect is really a study in the power of the human mind, or, depending on how you look at it, the power of bullshit. Tell a patient that the sugar pill they are ingesting is a cure and you vastly increase the chances that they will recover. This isn’t psudo-science or new age mysticism. This is carefully documented scientific fact. Our health is intimately linked to our state of mind.

The placebo effect can work in the opposite way as well. In a recent study, the arms of a group of students were rubbed by a plant which they were told was poison ivy. 80% of those students developed rashes consistent with that plant’s effect, despite the fact that the plant they touched wasn’t poison Ivy at all.

Since scientists are seeking real drugs and techniques which can consistently combat disease, they spend most of their time trying to eliminate the placebo effect from their research. Consequently, we think of placebo’s as a statistical anomaly or an experimental nuisance. However, I think that is a mistake.

These results are not inconsequential. They are substantiated and significant. I do not believe that our perceptions and beliefs can magically change the world around us (as we have been told by self help books like The Secret) However, there is no doubt that our beliefs can have powerful, transformative effects on ourselves and by transforming ourselves we do change both our perceptions of the world and how we act in it.

If faith in a tiny pill can cure disease, how much more powerful is faith in an omnipotent and loving God?

So, let us return to our AA members and examine, once again, how they managed their recovery. They knew that they could not beat their drinking on their own. They put their faith in a cure and the cure worked despite the fact that, for at least three out of four of them, the cure must not exist.

Is it possible that something which is not literally true can have real substantial value?

The answer is yes.

Here is a description of a religion.

You go with your family and community into a beautiful space. You perform rituals which are probably not all that different from what your great grand parents performed. You sing, read, and pray in unison. You listen to the wise words of elders. You meditate and contemplate your own life. You ask forgiveness for your inequities. You fast. You dance. You celebrate together and you mourn together. You lend your strength to the rest of the community when you can and take strength from the community when you need to. You have faith in a meaning and a power beyond this world.

The question is, which religion did I just describe? The answer: Pretty much all of them.

So, what do we conclude from this? That the major religions are nothing but plagiarists, callously stealing ideas from each other, or is it possible that the stuff religions do, fasting, singing, praying, is simply good stuff, regardless of whether the doctrine it is designed to support is true?

Almost every religion has the story of the wise man, Christian monk, Hindu ascetic, aboriginal Holy Man or Zen master, who turns his back on society and goes into the wilderness where, through a process of fasting, self denial, meditation, or even drug induced hallucination, has a transformative experience.

Again, what do we conclude from this. Do we see the transformative experience as evidence that the particular mythology the holy man subscribed to is true despite the fact, that that mythology is in direct contradiction to the holy men of other sects who had similar experiences or do we instead conclude that putting the mind and body through a profound change, fasting, deprivation, silence, torture, etc...can be transformative with or without any mythology at all?

The truth is that if you put the human body and mind in an extreme situation, whether it is fasting on your Yoga retreat or going through basic training in the marine corps something will happen, something profound.

Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela had their transformative experiences in prison.

So what do we tell our four AA members who’s faith saved their lives? What do we tell the billions of people across the globe who gain solace, hope and a sense of belonging from their religious traditions. What do we tell the men and women who have had a religious experience so profound that it has not only transformed their lives but, from their perspective, the entire world?

Do we tell them that these experiences are nothing more than dramatic examples of the placebo effect? Do we explain that songs, architecture and ritual do not prove the existence of God? Do we belittle the most important experience of their lives by explaining it?

Can you imagine how insulting that would sound?

Faith is real. Faith is powerful. Faith helped Gandhi and Martin Luther King stand up against impossible odds. Faith helped Jesus forgive his murderers. Faith might even have helped your team win the super bowl.

The truth is that all of the elements of religion; community, tradition, music, mediation, art, prayer, the personal spiritual journey, and yes even faith, can be positive and valuable additions to a person’s or community's life. The problem arises when that genuine value is seen as absolute proof that the particular doctrine they believe in must be true.

And that is very, very dangerous.

Faith exists beyond rational thought and is therefor easily manipulated and very difficult to argue with.

Our four AA men’s lives were literally saved by their faith, so how can they argue when their faith calls upon them to persecute homosexuals, burn down abortion clinics, or raise the shout of global Jihad against all the infidels who oppose the god that saved their life.

Faith has spilt it’s share of blood and the only hope we have is that we find a way to mediate the power of our faith with the power of reason.

In my opinion, the myths of Samson and Jonah are just as likely as the myths of Hercules and Loki or, for that matter, Superman and Spiderman.

However, I will acknowledge that your belief in those stories and your participation in the rituals that go along with them can have lasting and positive effects on your life and that of your community.

All I ask in return is that you acknowledge that believing in a thing beyond reason, beyond logic, can be as dangerous and destructive as it is beneficial.

I support your right to choose faith but I hope that it will be faith tempered by reason and compassion, a faith which is at once humble and forgiving, self-critical and patient.

In short, if your faith helps you strive to be a better person, then we have nothing to argue about.

Labels: , , , , , ,

15 Comments:

Blogger Rev. Donald Spitz said...

You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb. Which do you prefer, a pile of bricks or a pile of dead babies? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

8:22 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

I think Reverend Don kind of proves my point.

8:50 AM  
Blogger ZiggyMustard said...

Very well written.

However, the placebo effect has been disproven. The famous studies were not done with a proper control group. There is no "power of faith" to help people heal.

11:38 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

Glad you enjoyed it Ziggy.


What I presented was, perhaps, an oversimplified explanation of this effect but it is very well documented.

There is a pretty good (and far more detailed) explanation of placebos on wikipedia

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

2:18 PM  
Blogger Urban Barbarian said...

"All I ask in return is that you acknowledge that believing in a thing beyond reason, beyond logic, can be as dangerous and destructive as it is beneficial"

So, are you saying that believing in a Creator can be dangerous or destructive as it is beneficial?

Or are you saying that believing in religious doctrine can be dangerous and destructive as it is beneficial?

Logic is a funny thing. What is quite logical to one man can be very illogical to another.

Circumstances often dictate reason and logic. What is perfectly logical to a man of scientific reason today may not be reasonable and logical tomorrow.

1:26 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

"So, are you saying that believing in a Creator can be dangerous or destructive as it is beneficial? Or are you saying that believing in religious doctrine can be dangerous...l?"

I suppose the answer would have to be both although the doctrine is definitely the more dangerous of the 2 as it involves large groups of people. But the guy in Utah who murdered is wife child and another woman because he was certain that was God's will, is an example of of personal faith becoming dangerous (although I admit that is an extreme example)

Usually it takes large groups of people to make the real nuttiness of religion come out. (The Spanish Inquisition, The Holocaust) Both were God's will.

"Logic is a funny thing..." Yes very logical people, including scientists can disagree and what seems to be logical does change as we learn more about the world around us.

However, logic does have standards. It requires evidence, and statistics. It begins with the postulate that our feelings, senses and even our memory can be faulty or misled. Therefor, we try, through reason, to minimize those flaws.

Religion tends to take advantage of those very flaws to make it's points. It appeals to emotion, good story telling, and frequently our inherent fear of the "The Other".

Belief in a creator or a religious doctrine does not need to follow any standards of logic. It does not present evidence, or experimental data, it does not open itself to peer review. It's conclusions need neither be predictive nor repeatable.

Faith might feel right and, as I tried to point out in my blog, might be beneficial but that certainly doesn't make it true or logical.

10:30 AM  
Blogger Urban Barbarian said...

Certainly the Spanish Inquisition is a great example of misuse of power through religious manipulations. But the Holocaust, and I believe you're speaking about the attempted genocide of the Jews led by Hitler's forces was not. It was based on the logical theory of evolution.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm

and

http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp

But, I understand your point of view and I agree with you that in many cases presently and throughout history, religion has been the source of most of our wars and disputes. One very close to my heart is the attempted genocide of the Armenian people by the Turks.

Concerning Logic and it's Standards:

You site many examples in your essay that note The Placebo Effect. But, even scientifically, studies vary quite drastically. The Wikipedia Summary cannot agree on numbers and statistics at all. Scientists offer their own "logical" reasons for why they believe it's supporting factors show up or don't show up [ according to how they "feel" the true answer should be decided ]. In some cases, they go as far as to say the theory can't be tested properly because Test Groups might assume that a Placebo drug is most likely being used on them...

So, once again, "Circumstances often dictate reason and logic. What is perfectly logical to a man of scientific reason today may not be reasonable and logical tomorrow."

Logic, it seems, is a lot like religion in many ways.

According to many accounts, Hitler used Evolutionary Logic to sway the hearts and minds of his people to do his bidding.

Perhaps, in time, Logic can rack up some Statistics of it's own.

11:37 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

You're right about the Holocaust (Jewish). Even as I mentioned it I knew that I wasn't really on the money.

Evolution was ONE of the stated reasons Hitler's final solution although there are many others, economic, social, and religious.

Certainly I agree about the Armenian Holocaust.

However, simply saying that scientists sometimes disagree on what is logical or that very faulty and misguided logic is often used by bad people to do bad things doesn't mean that there aren't real standards out there which we can use to make better decisions

And it certainly doesn't put religion on the same level of reasonable discourse as science.

Where are the statistics in religion? Theories? peer review policies? Where is the love of facts? There are certainly predictions (a key factor in scientific work) The end of the world has been predicted a thousand times by a thousand different sects. However, when the end doesn't happen, does that religion abandon it's precepts and seek a better theory? No, they go on and on and make more predictions without any evidence.

That's not how science works.

If you're point is to say that science as an institution or scientists as people are flawed, then I agree with you.

However, in terms of logic, provability, and consistency, those flaws do not begin to approach those of religion which has no standards of proof whatsoever and is completely dependent on the interpretation, and often, the charisma of their individual religious leaders for their version of the truth.

12:40 PM  
Blogger Urban Barbarian said...

I agree with you for the most part. I think organized religion is very flawed. But..

I think religious statistics are similar to scientific statistics in a few ways. Religion bases it's information on events or perceived events that took place many years ago. That information, in many cases, has been documented.

You chose to believe "scientists" [ men ] you have never met concerning experiments that you haven't seen take place. You can't be positive about the conditions of the experiments or the procedures. You have FAITH that the they were carried out in the most advanced manner possible. But, in truth, you don't know. They are plenty of "theories" that are supported by scientific logic but they are not scientific facts or laws of nature.

A man could come on your TV set tomorrow and present a set of documented statistics about a subject and because he/she states numbers and statistics you take them on their word. You have put FAITH in their words. Two years from now, that same experiment could be proven wrong with a new scientist with a new theory and set of percentages and numbers. Then you would be inclined to believe him/her.

The truth is, when dealing with percentages and scientific "theory", and not absolutes, we must employ faith.

Faith concerning the circumstances and faith in the men that present us with these scientific and seemingly logical conclusions.

To put it another way, a man may not believe in God because he cannot see him. But we tend to believe the word of a scientist without seeing his experiments or procedures, etc. We believe that what he/she has written down is fact.

There are letters between Roman leaders discussing men like Jesus. People apparently saw him work miracles and reported their "findings" to the government. So, in some documented cases, people actually saw events take place too. Just like a scientist might report a finding he "saw" take place.

It sounds like the closest thing, at the time, to documentation in a scientific journal.

Is there anyone left around to say whether a particular political figure was short or tall from an era that did not record a photograph as evidence? In such cases, we must rely on old documentation. We can believe it or not. So it would go for ancient wars and other historical events. We have only small written accounts. But we rely on them as facts.

All I'm saying is that we really don't know much about anything...

I think you put faith in what many could contend is merely scientific fantasy based on percentages. Percentages, by the way, go both ways..

What men of science perceive as facts throughout the years has consistently changed from era to era.

The Placebo Effect has many scientific "theories" that support it. But in truth, the Placebo Effect is a fancy way of saying, "sometimes we can't explain why something happened the way it did..."

1:45 PM  
Blogger Urban Barbarian said...

On a side note, I find it interesting that your essay concerns faith and religion but the first LABEL you list at the bottom of your entry is Christianity.

Labels: Christianity, faith, God, Islam, Jesus, religion, terrorism

One might logically conclude that your motives are a bit Anti-Christian. I notice also that Judaism is missing but Islam is not. What is the logical explanation there? Since you're Jewish, I assume you're more familiar with Judaism than Islam. I'm sure there are many inhabitants of the Middle East that would contend that Judaism is an extremist religion and responsible for a great deal of terrorism, etc.

Basically, your entire essay boils down to two things: Faith, in many ways, can be beneficial - but you find it clinically amusing. And organized religion can, at times, be dangerous. But you don't really inform us about how you personally feel about either subject. It's very..."safe".

Do you find this thought provoking? Is this groundbreaking theory/discussion? Did these concepts just dawn on you? I don't think so. But your essay merely states what plenty of people have debated for years and years. Unless you offer a personal insight or opinion, your essay is simply a well written school report or mini-documentary.

I think this essay fails to make a profound journey because you try very hard to maintain a sort of argumentative cloak of inscrutable logic. It's not until someone posts an opinion that you allow a small amount of your own take on the subject shine through.

IMO your entries would have more impact if you would argue a position or start offering your personal insights instead of regurgitating familiar documentation.

2:02 PM  
Blogger Urban Barbarian said...

BTW, you brought up "end of the world" predictions from a religious standpoint.

Don't scientist also make similar predictions as well...? I think the same rules should apply.

Scientists have been predicting the "Big One" [ earthquake in California ] for some time now. Scientist also go back to the drawing board when their theories don't pan out. Or they argue evidence. One says 10 years. One said 10 years ago. Another says 20 from now. Maybe another says it could be up to 100 years from now. [That guy is the smartest scientist, IMO. He won't be around to be proven right or wrong! ]

Eventually either scientist's or prophet's predictions concerning the end of the world will come true. Then you and a priest can argue which side was right. ;)

2:14 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

Wow, three comments in a row. The streets must be very quiet for an Urban Barbarian to be so busy on the web.

I'll try to hit your points one at a time.

1. Believing in Science as faith. Great. totally agree. Believe it or not that is the topic of another blog I've been meaning to type. You're right. Most people take science on faith the same way people take God on faith. However, there is a fundamental difference. I can check the scientists work. I can drop stones of different weight and see if one falls faster just like Gallileo did. I can follow the stars, check Darwin's observations at the Galapagos. I can do that because those scientists carefully documented their work and other scientists checked their work and other scientists check theirs. Who fact checks the rabbis? Who checks the priests?

Science and religion both make predictions that turn out to false. Again I agree. But what do they do with their predictions. Scientists refine their methods and try again and again. You point out that the “Big One” hasn’t hit yet as evidence that scientists are just as wrong in their predictions as holy men but that just isn’t true. Our extremely technological world is a testament to the accuracy of their predictions. Engineers make a prediction on how the change in a car’s shape will effect fuel efficiency. Then they test that prediction and refine their methods so that the next prediction will be even more accurate. The vast majority of predictions scientists, engineers and even doctors make every day are incredibly accurate because of a scientific method which has been carefully adhered to for centuries.
And no, you don’t have to take any of that on faith. Have you ever flown on a plane? Undergone surgery? Used a computer? Watched TV? Those are the products of centuries of scientific advancement and prediction.

3. Hitler uses "logic" to do evil. Absolutely, he said things that sounded logical and convinced people to do horrible things but that doesn't mean we should abandon logic. It means we should teach logic, so people can see through the crap that people like Hitler(or, in my opinion, Pat Robertson, Loius Farakon, Osama Bin Laden and even Michael Moore) say.

4. Labels. Didn't put much thought into them and perhaps you can find some subconscious feelings at work in their position and choice. I'm adding Judaism now because this is as much about Jews as anyone. Thanks for pointing that out.

5. You say, I've written a middle of the road essay and maybe I have. However, I've watched too many extremists go toe to toe with each other and not get anywhere. I state quite clearly several times in the essay that I am not religious. I even compare the stories in the Jewish Torah to Greek Myths and comic books. But I don't see faith as “clinically amusing”. I repeatedly use words like, powerful, life changing, and transformative in regards to people's religious experiences. Those are big words and they do reflect how I feel. I am trying (although perhaps unsuccessfully) to get religious, bashing secularists to treat religious people with greater respect despite the fact that they “know” what those people believe in is wrong. I should have added that religious people should treat other religions and secularists like me with more respect for exactly the same reason.

3:06 PM  
Blogger Urban Barbarian said...

Gotcha.

However, scientifically, Bees shouldn't be able to fly... We still can't figure something out like that... Our math doesn't add up. Why is that?

I'm not saying we should abandon logic. "Heaven forbid!". I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate. I'm trying, perhaps in vain, to get you to take a stand that comes from more of an emotional place.

Sterile documentation on a blog like yours [ with the header as you have defined it ] is like consulting a Thomas Guide Map instead of stopping for directions. Give me some color. Give me Jack Kerouac. That is life. That is debate and human connection. Is yours a scientific journal or a "Journey"?

But back to our discussion:

I think until there's a scientific explanation for "why we're here" or what put us here - we should encourage both religion and, of course, science. Both can help and both can hurt. It's men and women that corrupt both. Not Religion in it of itself and not science. Both are study and practice, unperverted.

All things in moderation and certainly, knowledge and understanding are key to our survival both intellectually, spiritually and in the physical sense.

3:51 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

You keep trying to get me to express a strong opinion but what you've failed to recognize is that I've already given it.

I believe people need to try and understand each other, even when their beliefs seem diametrically opposed.

We've got enough passionate people in the world who are ready, willing and able to rip up the other side. Starting arguments is easy. What I am looking for are ways to end them.

9:56 AM  
Blogger Urban Barbarian said...

I like that.

'Nuff said.

5:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home