PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
I just can't stop seeking and pondering. To embrace blissful ignorance seems impossible for me. On this one I'm with Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If religion is a placebo...
- Thread starter PearlSeeker
- Start date
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Are you saying atheists don't have a natural need for something to help them get through life, to make life meaningful...?
The atheist anti-religious scientist Steven Weinberg said something different:
Although he never tried to hide his atheism—perhaps only Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have been more vocal—Weinberg was sympathetic to those who yearn for a more intimate conception of God. “I think a world governed by a creator who is concerned with human beings is in many ways much more attractive than the impersonal world governed by laws of nature that have to be stated mathematically; laws that have nothing in them that indicates any special connection with human life,” he told me. To embrace science is to face the hardships of life—and death—without such comfort. “We’re going to die, and our loved ones are going to die, and it would be very nice to believe that that was not the end and that we would live beyond the grave and meet those we love again,” he said. “Living without God is not that easy. And I feel the appeal of religion in that sense.”
Atheists don't say: we don't need any meaning. They say you have to find your own.
Last edited:
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Maybe a topic for another thread... In this thread I just wanted to leave it assumption that religion (and belief in God) is not based on truth (therefore placebo).
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I think that religion is the medicine. Non-belief is the placebo since it doesn't do anything.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Good point. It's the belief that makes placebo work. Medicine works if we believe it or not.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
You wrote "also". This means there is no medicine, right?
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
For example... ?
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
I wanted to live it at the assumption in the title. If something doesn't work then it's not a placebo (there is no placebo effect).
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Sorry.... my bad! I just couldn't help myself.
That is one way of defining a placebo. It is also defined as a substance that has no therapeutic effect.
Not really the same as accepting one's limits though - and that of humans in general - when a fruitless search might be more about wasting one's time and where our limited time could be used more productively.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
I can see that.
Placebos do things, their effect is just not pharmacologic.
Religion's effect seems to me just as psychically generated as the placebo effect. They may be identical.
Atheism, on the other hand, has no effect, claims no effect, and atheists seek no effect. It's not intended to "do" anything.
Religion is the placebo. Atheism, as you say, is nothing, just a lack of belief.
No. It's just that atheists are a catgory of people who do not recognize religion, religious behavior, or the peer pressure to adopt religious norms as meaningful to them. My own story was that I was like any other kid wanting to have fun, making things, etc. but where it came to going to church I asked questions while none of my peers did. I was 8-9-10 and asking questions why we went to church, what is God, who is Jesus, etc. I was given answrs that did not add up. I kept asking more qustions, and never got any that made sense to me. I simply was not attracted to the groupthink. My Catholic and Baptist cousins were totally absorbed in their religious experiences.
Cognitve psychology has proposed the biological phenomenon of "wired for God", that the vast majority of humans evolved to believe in a social norms even if they are not fatcual or rational. The brains of early humans evolved before language and rules of thought existed. It is estimated about 85% of all humans are "wired for God" which would imply that I am one of the 15%.
That said I have led a life of various pursuits, as a competitive cyclist since 1983. This will be my 40th year. I've been in bands, and starting a new project. I've had numerous businesses over the decades. So I am not empty of meaning, I just did not feel religion as a viable path for meaning.
From what I observe many theists are attracted to religions and religious groups for various reasons. I've watched my sister go from religion to religion seeking truth and inevitably being dissatisfied. To my mind I asked why she sought truth from what others believe, and not from her own path. She always had this notion that others knew something she didn't. I pointed out that religions rely heavily on assumptions, not fact. She could always find a "truth" but upon examination it was always going to be dubious given the assumptions. From what I observed she was looking more for a tribe than truth, and I suspect this motivates many believers. This certainly is supported by the biological mechanisms in early humans that relied on the security of a trusting tribe to survive.
For early humans it was actual survival. Today I think that had become a survival of the ego. The fear that revolves around ego, and how public embarrassment and shame is something many fear, we humans go to many lengths to protect it. Studies show that people are more afraid to speak in public than death. That is amazing. We humans really desire approval by others, and having a tribe assures some degree of safety.
Look at what he says here:
those who yearn for a more intimate conception of God. “I think a world governed by a creator who is concerned with human beings is in many ways much more attractive than the impersonal world governed by laws of nature that have to be stated mathematically; laws that have nothing in them that indicates any special connection with human life,”
This is true from my observations. So many have anxiety about being ordinary, having to create meaning for themselves and build self-worth. This is burdonsome, and it is vastly easier to adopt a framework that comes with a notion that "You are special" to a God. But if a God exists is it really concerned for us? Look at defects. Look at people born with mental illness or disorders. Look at children born with genes that cause cancers, and they have to suffer through treatments they don't understand and often die. If you were God would you allow that? Is that how you would show concern for a child, giving it cancer? If not, then you can understand why the religious idea is so manipulative to our natural fears and anxieties, but even cruel.
It feels good to believe in a God so long as life's trauma and problems are not too severe, and we can solve them ourselves. Get cancer, prayer won't fix it. Arguably if you get cancer it was God's will, according to how many believers think. To get treatment might go against God's will, afterall God gave you cancer for a reason, yes? Can you see the trap of religious belief when life gets truly difficult?
Last edited:
I read a statement once that said something like "If you could prove without a doubt that Rama didn't exist, the majority of Hindus that worshipped him would be unbothered. It doesn't matter whether he lived or not, the teachings surrounding him still remain important."
If one aspect of a religion is incorrect, it doesn't negate all of that religion's teachings. Perhaps a story of a religious figure is the placebo. The lesson the story aims to teach is the medicine.
Aspirin causes pain. Going to therapy worsens your mental health. Getting food assistance when food insecure results in more malnutrition. Or any other equally absurd notion.
To be more transparent here, I framed my response the way that I did to draw attention to how absurd it is to think of religion as a placebo. To my mind, there is no "if religion is a placebo." It's the exact opposite of a placebo. The entire point of religion is to provide guidance on answering life's big questions and find meaning. It is medicine. That's what it does. And when you are following the right religion for you, it works, full stop. Like aspirin for pain, like therapy for depression, like food assistance for malnutrition.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Yes, religion works (provides guidance, meaning...), as long as you are believing (following) it. That's the definition of a placebo effect.
I get that Protestant Christianity has caused many in the English speaking world to think religion is all about believing in things.
It is not.
Following a religion is about practicing things. Like taking aspirin. It's not just a head game.
For an easy example of a religious practice that isn't about "believing in" something: meditation.
Here's another: holiday meals.
How about another: nature walks.
We can grant that for some, these things are not religious practices. This does not negate the fact that for others, these are religions practices. Not placebo. Very much not placebo. Placebo is such an over-used and misunderstood word these days... ah well.
It's a practice. It works regardless of what you "believe" about it. There's a pretty good body of scientific literature demonstrating its efficacy, if one is into those kinds of yardssticks of worth.
Here's another: holiday meals.
Also, a practice. It's a great comfort and joy regardless of what you "believe" about it. Sharing the company with others, practicing hospitality, all great soul food as the meal provides body food.
How about another: nature walks.
There's an interesting and growing body of research on how being out in nature benefits mental and physical health regardless of what you "believe" about it.
We can grant that for some, these things are not religious practices. This does not negate the fact that for others, these are religions practices. Not placebo. Very much not placebo. Placebo is such an over-used and misunderstood word these days... ah well.
I think you don't understand what the placebo effect is. A placebo effect does in fact have a therapeutic effect, but it is due to the person's belief, rather than any actual medicinal value of the pill given to them.
For instance a sugar pill taken with the belief that it will cure them of some ailment, has the result that their aliment improves, showing clearly that it was not the pill, but the belief in the pill itself that was the agent of healing.
Placebo Effect: a beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment.
From understanding the true confirmed effects that belief can have on one's body being healed, or emotional or psychological condition being improved or healed, we should be able to begin to understand how "your faith has made you whole", as Jesus told the woman who was healed as she touched the hem of his garment. It's not an outside agent, but an internal process of self-healing enacted through the power of one's own beliefs.
For further information on the Placebo Effect, see here: What Is the Placebo Effect? | Definition & Examples
So for me, the answer to the OP, "If religion is a placebo what is the true medicine?", is answered in the effect itself. Your own mind and spiritual intent aligned with belief in Truth, Beauty, and Goodness is. It has the power to move mountains, as Jesus taught.
Last edited:
I thought the main points of religion were usually:
A. Avoid annoying God and inviting his wrath upon you or your community.
B. Please God so he won't send you to Hell.
C. Demonstrate your conventionalism and acceptance of common, community values, so you will not be looked on as odd or suspicious.
D. To enjoy a church/mosque/temple centered social club.
I assumed guidance and meaning were the purview of psychotherapy.
Guidance and meaning are all well and good, but why do the Abrahamic religions insist their mythology and doctrines are ontologic truth, and that failure to accept them as such will lead to perdition?