What's more important?

Post Reply New Topic

The placebo effect, derived from believing a placebo pill will help you is no longer a mysterious psychological phenomenon. Research indicates that measurable increases in the release of endorphins, norepinephrine, and dopamine result from the belief that the placebo pill will help. This is the scientifically based reason why placebos can be so effective in relieving pain, reducing anxiety, and increasing well being in general. And the same benefits are derived whether the pill is a placebo or an actual drug. Part of the reason it is so hard to develop effective drugs is that they must be tested to be significantly more effective than the placebo. When a person learns that the placebo pill is a placebo the effects often disappear.

Religion in general, or the belief in God can be considered the ultimate placebo, because while the placebo pill can be easily disproved, religions have had centuries to provide defensive structures to keep belief intact. As in the case of the placebo pill, a person can maintain the placebo effect as long as their belief in God remains intact.

If God actually exists the placebo effect, of believing in God, exists (in this case there may be additional benefits above and beyond the placebo, but I am not providing evidence for the additional benefits).

If God does not actually exist the placebo effect, of believing in God, exists as long as the person's belief that God exists remains the same.

Some people believe that a person's belief in God is a foolish thing, because the religious claim that God exists is not rational.

The placebo effect is particularly helpful with emotional pain which some people describe as worse than physical pain. Since we all are human, we experience emotional pain and deal with it in whatever way works best for each of us.

Some people believe in God and reap a placebo effect their entire life, whether or not God actually exists.

Not without relevance.

There is a place for advocatus diaboli.

Make of it as it lets you.

http://www.mtwain.com/Was_It_Heaven?_Or_Hell?/0.html

You think the placebo effect is scientifically measurable because? Then you assume that just because it is scientifically measurable it means it heals people, it doesn't really...

Research on the Placebo effect and endorphins:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070718140746.htm
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1546/63


Research on the Placebo effect and dopamine:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r097702030522265/
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38566732/ns/health/
[/url]

Research on the Placebo effect and norepinephrine:
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/21/the-placebo-effect-my-genes-made-me-do-it.html

Research suggests that the placebo effect is stronger in some people, and that a genetic component may be involved. I'm not suggesting that the placebo effect heals any condition, disorder, or disease. The increase in endorphins and dopamine that has been measured in the placebo effect can reduce pain, anxiety, and enhance the feeling of well being. The benefits don't stop there. Increases in dopamine also can reduce depression, increase pleasure, focus, and enhance memory.

How do atheists determine importance? I'm curious.

false causality has caused more harm and is causing more harm then a placebo will ever make right.

Barring brain injury, psychological, or neurological disorder, research indicates that emotion has a stronger influence than logic in the human decision making process. In general what we value today is based on what we valued yesterday. It started with emotion and ends with emotion. I don't see a significant difference in the process for an atheist or non-atheist.

Well that either means both have enough common ground to build a society that both can agree to or that its a miracle humans have gotten as far as they have.

This is exactly where I was heading when I read the OP. Basically the OP is asking this question

What is more important?

1. The positive, healing placebo effect upon believers in God vs
2. The deleterious effect the believers in god have or have had, upon those who do not believe as they do.

Yes, the ground is common enough for the society that has been built. I don't think agreement and miracles are required.

Does a theist experience strong emotions because of #1?
Does an atheist experience strong emotions because of #2?

This is the exact reason why I am supportive of peoples religious beliefs, so long as they don't violate utilitarianism principles when practicing their religion (a.k.a. don't harm or decrease the quality of life for others).

Religion serves a useful and practical purpose in society - its placebo effect, as the OP so accurately summarizes it, improves the quality of life for religious people in a significant fashion. There's been plenty of psychological research done on the emotional and lifestyle benefits of being religious or of being part of a religious network - especially for more disadvantaged members of society.

Personally, I am agnostic.

Sorry - I still do not get, even with expansion, the "false causality" line.

I kind of wonder if "false causality" is something taken out of Nietzsche. Nietzsche talks about false causality in Twilight of the Idols.

It is harder to deny the causality in the placebo effect now that the effect can be measured.

While one can argue for or against the actual existence of God. The "God effect" in humans is harder to deny now because the causality can be measured, as well. It is reasonable for the poster to consider "God" a false causality if he does not believe that God exists.

As far as this statement goes: "The deleterious effect the believers in god have or have had, upon those who do not believe as they do." To me, this is what the false causality line meant, the first time I read it because of the context of the discussion.

The statement: "false causality has caused more harm and is causing more harm then a placebo will ever make right." without context is not logical. In logical terms "false causality" becomes true causality when it causes the measurable effect of harm. I think this may be the issue Philologos had with the line.

I have a problem with the "deleterious effect", but unfortunately, I think it is an integral part of the "God effect" and our nature in general as humans. Different beliefs are a challenge to a believer and threaten the positive "placebo" or "God effects" that they receive from their beliefs. The "deleterious effect" is one of the many defense mechanisms that religions use to keep beliefs intact.

Can the O.P. provide references into peer review scientific journals which indicate there is a placebo effect benefit from believing in god.?

I have my doubts about any such study and I would like to see how an unbiased study of this sort can be carried out.

ruveyn