posted
I alluded to this in one post buried in another thread, but think the topic deserves to be fleshed out in its own thread.
Much of what I am about to say are extensions of ideas in "Persuasion and Healing : A Comparative Study of Psychotherapy" by Jerome and Julia Frank.
Theists often use the psychological healing they experienced (i.e., forgiveness they finally gave, self-hatred they gave up, addictions they overcame, etc) while believing in God as evidence for the existence of God ("It must be true because it worked, right?"). I'd like to deconstruct this position and suggest that a belief does not have to be true even though it often results in psychological healing.
(Note: I am happy whenever healing occurs and fault no one for using what works. But, I would like people to remember that their beliefs are not proven to be correct just because they are healed while holding those beliefs.)
Let me begin by drawing a few parallels in healing traditions that apply whether one is looking at Native American healing beliefs, ancient Greeks, Chinese, western medicine, or Christians.
1) There is a myth (not necessarily false) or belief system that gives the participants a shared worldview including where illness comes from and how to heal it. [Don't get hung up on the following examples](Grossly oversimplified: Voodoo practitioners believe in a magical worldview in which illness comes from someone throwing a hex on you. The Chinese believe illness comes from a lack of balance in internal forces. Western medicine believes illness comes from chemical imbalances, viruses and bacteria, and not properly dealing with things psychologically. Modern Christians have a lot of western medicine in their beliefs, but old Christianity teaches that illness is due to sin or possession by devils).
2) There is a healer that is knowledgable in the myth and how to lead people to health. (Shamans, medicine men, witch doctors, oracles, psychiatrists, priests, etc)
3) There is a healing place. (sweat lodges, temples, healing valleys, churches, doctor offices, etc)
4) Often sacrifice is required (burnt or other offerings, money donations to the healer, tedious journey, mentally sacrifice one's wants, fasting, etc)
5) There are healing rituals (blessings, voodoo magic, potions to be consumed, for psychologists it is the expected dialogue exchanges and perhaps homework assignments)
I find these commonalities fascinating. For many types of psychological healing (forgiveness of others, forgiveness of self, grief, mild anxiety and depression), each type is equally effective. [I would contend that Western medicine does have an advantage on more severe psychological problems, but that is unrelated to this post.]
Although the specific beliefs and worldviews differ, they all take advantage of the same psychological processes: A) Belief - the person to be healed must believe in the myth and that they can be healed by following it. B) Letting Go - the person needs to let go of old hurts, grudges, and unfulfilled expectations. C) Acceptance - the person needs to accept what life has dealt them and accept themselves for who they are D) Strength - the person needs to be able to draw from the myth and rituals the strength that enables them to change
It does not seem to matter whether what one believes in is objectively true or not in order for it to work. All that is important in step A is that they have faith in the system. Scientific studies have been conducted that show that cognitive therapy begins working after the first session to improve the clients symptoms of depression, etc, even though the "active ingredients" of the therapy have not been taught, yet. The reason for the improvement is believed to be due to the therapist instilling belief in the therapy into the patient and confidence that it will work for them.
Now, all the healing is not due to the placebo effect, the other steps of healing need to be there in order for the healing practice to work.
So, just because someone attributes their healing to Christ's atonement or whatever, does not mean an atonement actually happened. (It does not mean that an atonement did not happen either, but that is not the focus of my argument).
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Read the quote below starting with the premise "<insert deity name here> exists." :
quote:A) Belief - the person to be healed must believe in the myth and that they can be healed by following it. B) Letting Go - the person needs to let go of old hurts, grudges, and unfulfilled expectations. C) Acceptance - the person needs to accept what life has dealt them and accept themselves for who they are D) Strength - the person needs to be able to draw from the myth and rituals the strength that enables them to change
posted
suminonA: I am not sure what you are getting at. What is it that you notice that you want either me or someone else to notice?
To me, step "A" is already starting with the premise you suggested. Although your premise does narrow the application of the steps to just deistic myths. It excludes animism and scientific worldview myths.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the equating of modern medical practices and religious faith healing to be absurd, not to mention dangerous.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I noticed while doing the "thought experiment" was the fact that I immediately felt the urge to reply:
"Wait a minute! <insert deity name here> is not just (i.e. simply) a myth!"
I could even feel offended by your portraying of the healing powers of faith in <insert deity name here> as being purely psychological.
Disclaimer: I don’t know what a theist’s reaction actually is, I obviously did the “thought experiment” based on my (limited) knowledge about this Universe, such as I see it as an atheist.
Different people usually notice different things while conducting such “thoughts experiments”
A.
PS: What is a "scientific worldview myth"?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am not equating them, but drawing parallels. There is of course more substance to modern medical practices with very specific treatments and therapies for specific disorders and conditions. I am not discounting or even talking about those.
I am saying that modern medicine utilizes a healing pattern that can be found in most cultures and religious traditions.
Are you by chance in any medical field? Have you tried to treat someone who does not buy into the western medicine myth? In other words they don't believe in medications or that diseases are caused by cancers or infections, etc. It is very difficult to get patient's to submit to diagnostic tests, take their medications or get the radiation they need, etc, if they do not buy into the scientific worldview. They will instead ignore western medicine and seek out a practitioner of whatever myth they believe in.
I think it is very important that every medical practitioner understand the healing pattern I have described in order to better understand treating people of different cultures.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
suminonA: Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately the word myth has come to imply something false in popular usage. However, scholars use the word differently. There is no implication that a myth is false.
Webster's online dictionary defines myth as: "1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon."
The scientific world view is a myth of sorts. It has a creation story (Big Bang and evolution). It has developed concepts that are used to explain observations of the natural world (gravity, light as electromagnetic radiation, micro-organisms).
Wikipedia says: "Myths are often intended to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself.
In folkloristics, which is concerned with the study of both secular and sacred narratives, a myth also derives some of its power from being believed and deeply held as true. In the study of folklore, all sacred traditions have myths, and there is nothing pejorative or dismissive intended in the use of the term, as there often is in common usage."
I emphasized in my original post that myth does not imply false: "1) There is a myth (not necessarily false) or belief system that gives the participants a shared worldview including where illness comes from and how to heal it."
Edit: You said: "I could even feel offended by your portraying of the healing powers of faith in <insert deity name here> as being purely psychological."
My purpose is not to offend. I am offering my explanation as a possibility and do not deny the possibility that a god does exist. I am trying to cause a disconnect within the thought, "I have been healed, therefore my beliefs are true."
quote:Originally posted by enochville: Unfortunately the word myth has come to imply something false in popular usage. However, scholars use the word differently. There is no implication that a myth is false.
enochville, the thing is that “myth” cannot be equivalent to “truth” (you know, the Absolute Truth stuff). The word “myth” itself exists because there was a different concept to be named. So, when you say to a person convinced beyond any doubt that what they believe is a “myth” you simply insert the “necessity” that they might be wrong. And that goes against Absolute Truth “policy”.
As for the scientific myths, well, I thought there were “scientific theories”. But if scholars use it to name any “worldview that explains a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon” then obviously I’m not used to that use.
posted
suminonA: To the believer, their myth is the ulimate truth, the ultimate reality. I believe in the scientific, naturalistic worldview; it creates and contains the myth I subscribe to. I believe it is true, although I could be wrong. But, it is not the fact that I could be wrong that makes it a myth. The stories of the origins of the universe and life on the earth and its explanations for why things are the way they are that makes it a myth. It is bigger than any theory (i.e., evolution by natural selection) and can even accomodate some paradigm changes (i.e., moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics).
Not all scholars would consider the scientific worldview as a myth (that view is put forth by Jerome and Julia Frank), and it works. But, all scholars in folk lore and anthropology agree that they way they use the term myth does not imply falsehood.
Myth is similar to worldview but also includes the stories of origins and why things are the way they are and behave as they do.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
enochville, I hope you don’t mind me saying : “By the way, I find it a bit amusing that you and I seem to reach all the same conclusions despite our differing ways to get there.”
What I mean with that is that we apparently argue on semantics. You call “myth” here what I call “subjective truth” (i.e. the only “kind” of truth to have any practical “provability”), the “RIGHT thing for ONE person”.
Yet now I wonder if you acknowledge that there is ONLY ONE ABSOLUTE TRUTH according with Logic. You know, the one kind that it is still true, whatever you and I might think about it
quote:1) There is a myth (not necessarily false) or belief system that gives the participants a shared worldview including where illness comes from and how to heal it. [Don't get hung up on the following examples](Grossly oversimplified: Voodoo practitioners believe in a magical worldview in which illness comes from someone throwing a hex on you. The Chinese believe illness comes from a lack of balance in internal forces. Western medicine believes illness comes from chemical imbalances, viruses and bacteria, and not properly dealing with things psychologically. Modern Christians have a lot of western medicine in their beliefs, but old Christianity teaches that illness is due to sin or possession by devils).
2) There is a healer that is knowledgable in the myth and how to lead people to health. (Shamans, medicine men, witch doctors, oracles, psychiatrists, priests, etc)
3) There is a healing place. (sweat lodges, temples, healing valleys, churches, doctor offices, etc)
4) Often sacrifice is required (burnt or other offerings, money donations to the healer, tedious journey, mentally sacrifice one's wants, fasting, etc)
5) There are healing rituals (blessings, voodoo magic, potions to be consumed, for psychologists it is the expected dialogue exchanges and perhaps homework assignments)
I find these commonalities fascinating.
They make for very terrible 'commonalities.' When actually investigated in depth, the effect of the crude comparisons is lost. In my eyes, it's a big, big stretch to make very fundamentally different systems seem alike through dubious correlations, such as the idea that both a native religion and a modern scientific medicine system often have physical locations associated with their respective societal functions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have probably done a horrible job explaining the ideas in Frank's book. Here is a link to the book on Amazon.com with excerpts: http://tinyurl.com/p8g9kPosts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean that the whole point of Western Medicine is objective treatment. Most of the treatments in Western Medicine work independent of the beliefs of the patient. Most of them don't even require the patient to be conscious.
I was a medic, and I have dealt with people who believed other types of healing were as important, if not more important, than Western Medicine, but my personal, objective observation is that those alternative beliefs work best in conjunction with Western Medicine rather than as a replacement for it.
Belief is a very powerful force, and it should not be ignored or rejected, but positive reinforcement and faith healing won't help most people who have liver failure or a heart attack.
I have seen things that cannot be explained, and experienced them myself. My doctors when I was attacked and left for dead while in the Army have no idea how I managed to get up...twice...and finish walking to the post. I should have died on the spot. But I didn't, because I am too stubborn to die.
The mind can work wonders, and for long term treatments attitude is everything. Doctors who treat cancer patients can often tell a lot of the time who won't make it, even if they can't tell who will, based on their determination to beat the disease and their attitude about their illness. Attitude doesn't cure them, but it goes a long, long way to help the healing process. Not everyone with a good attitude lives, but almost no one with a defeatist attitude lives.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea: I absolutely agree with you that much of Western medicine will work regardless of belief. And even other healing traditions sometimes use herbs that really do have physiological effects that aid in healing. Even Western psychology has real treatments that can help change brain functioning on a biological level.
But, it is the belief in the Western medicine myth, that gets people to seek treatment from medical doctors. It is belief in the myth that gets them to have trust in the examination process. It is belief in the myth that gets them to accept the diagnosis. It is belief in the myth that gets them to comply with doctor's orders and go through the ritual of taking their medicine or going for chemo treatments, or adjusting their diet. It is belief in the myth that makes people willing to pay high medical bills.
If people don't do anyone of those things because they don't buy into the myth, they do not get the healing from the medicine. (In the case of paying bills, they may be denied treatment in the future or denied medicine from the pharmacist).
Perhaps it might help if I gave some examples from other cultures. Practitioners of Chinese medicine do not ask tons of questions like Western doctors do. They perceive what the ailment is by examining the distribution of "force fields" around the person's body. Chinese patients who are used to this kind of assessment, think that western doctors don't know what they are doing since they have to ask so many questions. "The doctor is supposed to tell the patient what is wrong, not the other way around". Also, the diagnosis better be something physical, psychological disorders do not exist in Chinese medicine. The patient is passive in the healing process in Chinese medicine; the practitioner does all the rituals to treat the person. So, you can see, the problems that would come if you are treating someone who believes in the Chinese medicine myth and does not believe in the Western medicine myth.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, it is the belief in the Western medicine myth, that gets people to seek treatment from medical doctors. It is belief in the myth that gets them to have trust in the examination process. It is belief in the myth that gets them to accept the diagnosis. It is belief in the myth that gets them to comply with doctor's orders and go through the ritual of taking their medicine or going for chemo treatments, or adjusting their diet. It is belief in the myth that makes people willing to pay high medical bills.
Much more important is the availability and the viability of the "Western medicine" system, since it was developed using rational methodology. It does not operate on the concept of rituals or ceremonies; it is an applied and naturalistically falsifiable process. Chemo treatments and prescriptions are not rituals in any sense of the word used to describe mythological medicine procedures, they are processes.
The "myth" of modern medicine is distinctly separate from the traditional and nonscientific methods that they are being compared to. The belief structure behind the support of western medicine is empirical evidence, not faith. This makes them greatly dissimilar.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary: I absolutely agree with you that Western medical treatments were developed using the rational scientific methodology and therefore, are superior to ancient traditions or "wives' tales" that have not been subjected to rigorous testing. I am a scientist myself and have been published in reputable peer reviewed journals (mostly as an additional author, but once as primary author and I am still a graduate student). I whole-heartedly accept science and have great confidence in it. I say all of this, because the replies I am getting seem to not know this about me.
I am NOT saying that Western medicine only works by faith just like all other healing traditions. I am introducing the board to the work of Jerome Frank, whose book I was introduced to in my graduate studies at a very reputable school. His work does not attempt to undermine Western medicine. Instead, it was written to remind us to be sensitive to the expectations of patients from various cultures. It is to help us be aware of how our healing tradition at a meta-cognitive level fits in with all healing traditions.
Only when we are aware of the parallels I listed in the original post can we take full advantage of them and begin to contemplate how to get people from different cultures to buy into Western medicine so that we can give them the help that they need. The reason we want to be "missionaries" of sorts and try to get people to accept our myth is because we truly believe that it is more effective at healing people and have the research to back up that belief. Yet, by respecting other traditions we may learn something about a better way to deliver what we have found through research to the patient so that it is easier to accept.
Sometimes, we practitioners of medicine forget to the human interaction part of medicine. We sometimes think it is enough to treat people for their illnesses in a very objective, distant way (like a chemist solving problems and causing chemical reactions). We forget that we sometimes have to sell people on the idea of Western medicine (get Africans to use condoms to prevent the transmission of AIDS, get rural people in Indonesia to wash their hands often to prevent disease, etc). I am really talking about factors that affect compliance and trust. When these things are ignored, we are less effective as practioners. We could have all the answers in the world and cures for all disease, but our success at treating them will be dependent on whether people buy into the Western medicine myth.
Did you know that we had almost wiped small pox from off the face of the earth, but now it is making a comeback? Why were we not successful? We have had an effective vaccination for decades and a system of distribution to every courner of the world and all the money we needed to vaccinate every living soul. It was because some rural peoples did not buy into the Western medical myth; they would not permit their peoples to receive shots.
We can ignore the healing tradition parallels, but they do exist, and the sooner we learn to use them to our advantage, the better. I know we don't want faith and subjectivity to enter our "illusuion of perfect objectivity", but if we don't make room for this on the patient's part (in the delivery of medicine), our objectivity in the lab (the research part) may not be as effective as it could be.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am introducing the board to the work of Jerome Frank, whose book I was introduced to in my graduate studies at a very reputable school. His work does not attempt to undermine Western medicine. Instead, it was written to remind us to be sensitive to the expectations of patients from various cultures. It is to help us be aware of how our healing tradition at a meta-cognitive level fits in with all healing traditions.
I actually just read up on it right now! I mean, even if it doesn't sound like it, I do follow and agree.
The parallels are "people trust what they think works." I'm all for it. In a pretty liberal society, or much of anyplace where medical treatment is up to the discretion of the patient, it's important to work out accord.
I read some reports by cultural anthropologists where it was stated that the most effective thing to do, generally, was to make sure everyone in a culture gets the idea that modern medical treatment is secular body tinkering, not to replace one's spiritual treatments, and (hopefully) compatable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
