Interbane, this is a classic example of the tendency to argue that Christians believe something absurd, and therefore are stupid.

Classic and correct, with a number of acquaintances as living proof. If you hope to rebase your philosophy on the same words, you will be fighting an uphill battle. You can't undo the baggage that's been loaded on board.

Faith actually is a narrative framework, as the articulation of a mindset or paradigm that explains the nature of reality.

If you mean the glue that holds together various philosophies and hypotheses to form a worldview, I wouldn't call that faith. There is too much evidence and reasoning, and it's a matter of confidence. Only after some things are held on faith, but that only means that faith is necessary, not sufficient.

A narrative framework may be a powerful component in achieving something, but I still do not see it as a necessary component. The key is necessity versus sufficiency.

Can you nominate any great achievements that have occurred which were not inspired by some one who had complete faith in their own vision?

Many achievements in mathematics comes immediately to mind as an example of an achievement that can happen without "vision". It could happen simply from people following the numbers.

The purely scientific attitude to medicine undermines the reality that health requires a number of factors where faith is important, especially the strength of social links, which are generally strengthened by shared belief.

What makes you think that the "purely scientific" perspective is ignoring certain factors? I will have to look, but I remember studies into the health benefits of having a comforting/nurturing social life. Also, the meditative state found during prayer can have benefits as well I would think.

True belief can be even more powerful, when it recognizes the psychological role that faith plays as a form of social glue and statement of purpose and direction .

I have to ask. How do you define true belief? Is that believing in the truth (if so, define 'truth'), or truly believing in...what? faith?

The problem now is that the great success of drug treatments has become a new faith, the idea that pills are the key to health.

The drug industry is a billion dollar one which is probably an even bigger reason why we have been convinced that pills are the key to health. I am dismayed when I see just how many people take over-the-counter as well as prescription drugs on a regular basis, truly convinced that these medications are necessary. We're creating a whole nation dependant on drugs and an economy relying on that dependancy.

The drug industry is a billion dollar one which is probably an even bigger reason why we have been convinced that pills are the key to health. I am dismayed when I see just how many people take over-the-counter as well as prescription drugs on a regular basis, truly convinced that these medications are necessary. We're creating a whole nation dependant on drugs and an economy relying on that dependancy.

This is sad. I wonder what the percentages are if you were to classify the effects of the pills. Some would be purely placebo, some would be suppressing symptoms, and some would be curing the underlying issue. Suppressing symptoms would be the money maker. Consumption of goods feeds the beast, which means more and better advertising for similar products. I know there are a large number of actual cures, but I wonder what percentage. I also wonder what motivates some companies to pursue cures rather than symptom suppression. Not that they shouldn't... but I'm curious if there's regulation, or if there corporate mission statements that emphasize cures.

Interbane (and anyone else), I wonder what your thoughts are on the placebo effect. I wrote that it is harnessing the mind to affect physical systems, but now I suspect that might not be on target. Do we really know if the mind can effect specific cures? We do know that directing our thoughts can signal changes in physiology, but that doesn't mean that our thoughts can cure disease.

What the placebo effect may be, instead, is simply an emotional boost that makes the person have better spirits, mostly because she thinks that she's getting effective treatment. There may be no connection between this feeling and the health outcome. If she gets better, she might have anyway, but she has suffered less mentally under the placebo. If she doesn't get better, she still has for a period had less emotional stress adding to the stress of her physical symptoms.

There might not even have to be any placebo for this boost to happen. Think of the person who has had chemo and a return of the cancer and decides not to have any further treatment. He knows he's going to die, but he might develop an attitude toward his death that gives him more peace than if he were to continue to battle for short-term life. The thought that his pain can be managed in the end stages might make him less fearful and might be have a placebo effect in itself.

So without real scientific evidence, I have to be more doubtful that placebo or "faith" can cure anything, although both can be good for the sick person.

I've always thought that many ailments, especially those that are stress-related, are more or less psychosomatic anyway. It would make sense that such ailments could be cured by positive thinking or placebo effect. We go to a faith healer, we feel like we've done something to address the problem, and we begin to feel better.

It wouldn't surprise me that a positive attitude could make us feel better, both physically and emotionally, and induce our body's own healing abilities. The idea that faith moves mountains makes perfect sense to me in that sense. If we believe we can do something, we work harder to make it happen. Even if our faith is based on irrational beliefs, it can have positive benefits.

Some would be purely placebo, some would be suppressing symptoms, and some would be curing the underlying issue. Suppressing symptoms would be the money maker.

I think the biggest money comes from convincing the greater population that they need to suppress symptoms and that the underlying issue is not their own responsibility. Why do people believe that they are supposed to be happy all the time, painfree all the time, sleep 8 hours every night, have sex all the time, lose weight without eating less, quit smoking without feeling the effect of withdrawal?

I know that some of the above do have serious underlying issues that may need medical treatment, but the biggest percentage do not. Life style changes and accepting that life is sometimes sad and painful and that happiness takes effort would do a lot more for a person than turning to medication.

Having faith in your own ability to help yourself probably goes along way to being a heathier person. The mind and the body are not two separate things. There is one body system that includes the brain and they are intricately linked.

I've always thought that many ailments, especially those that are stress-related, are more or less psychosomatic anyway.

I think that psychosomatic illness is much more complicated than people being sick because of stress or because they believe they are or will be sick.

I read a book a while ago where the author believed that most of the autoimmune disorders, such as arthritis, asthma and even cancer, were in some part caused by suppression of anger. His idea was that certain personality types, the types who always get along with everyone, do not cause trouble, always have a smile, but are unable to reveal their real any negative feelings, even to themselves, are much more prone to these types of diseases. His theory was that this anger manifested itself in anger toward the body itself and attacks.

I don't think a placebo would necessarily help this kind of thing, because it (providing his theory has merit) is much more deeply rooted problem, but perhaps work on communication, self-expression, self-image, etc. could ease up some of the physical symptoms.

This is a little different than the placebo effect, but it is along the lines of the state of mind healing the body and also how the state of mind affects the health of the body.

What the placebo effect may be, instead, is simply an emotional boost that makes the person have better spirits, mostly because she thinks that she's getting effective treatment. There may be no connection between this feeling and the health outcome.

There are a few things that come to mind that might be relevant here. One, thoughts can affect us physiologically as you've said. Think of a naked woman. The intermediary between brain and body is a chemical. Fear releases chemicals, guilt releases chemicals, many emotions are linked to chemical mechanisms. The endocrine system is a chemical communication system in our body. We don't know the entire language. The regulation of a massive number of biological functions is done chemically. Blood pressure, electrolyte balance, sugar intake, and even our growth from birth to maturity.

A simple meditative exercise can lower blood pressure and cortisol. Cortisol suppresses your immune system, so meditating can boost your health. I'm sure there are countless other ways in which thoughts can affect physiology via chemicals.

The immune system is like the US military. Specialized pieces with different areas and sizes of focus. But composed of individuals. When at war with some diseases, it's nearly a stalemate, but one side is slowly gaining ground on the other. If we increase the rate that our immune system produces soldiers, the tables will turn and ground will be recovered.

Another thing to consider is belief. Belief itself isn't remarkable, but it is required for some physiological responses. You will feel fear if you believe someone is serious about killing you. But you feel no fear if you know them well and realize they are joking. So belief is a primary variable in some cases. Without it, no physiological response. With it, there is a response.

Think of a woman who is fighting for her life against cancer. Everything is going downhill until someone gives her a magical pill to cure cancer. It's a sugar pill but she thinks it's medicine. What would happen insider her head at that point, and in the hours following? Daydreaming about spending time with grandchildren rather than worrying about never seeing them again. Even if the thought is fleeting, it could alter your chemistry. Just like the flicker of an arousing thought can alter your chemistry. If it is cortisol that is reduced with that thought(a similar reaction to meditation), the effect could be cumulative. With less stress, the woman's belief in the pill would be strengthened, and she'd have more stress-reducing thoughts(or less stress-causing thoughts). With the increased effectiveness of the immune system after cortisol is suppressed, the difference could be enough to win a war against invading disease. A war that wouldn't be won without the reduction of cortisol. You'd be cured of whatever that specific disease was, simply by believing you were. This isn't the magic of belief, it's cause and effect, but very complex.

So I think placebo can effect a cure, but reality is far more complex and there are likely a ton of regulatory chemicals on both sides that would need to be considered.

I read a book a while ago where the author believed that most of the autoimmune disorders, such as arthritis, asthma and even cancer, were in some part caused by suppression of anger. His idea was that certain personality types, the types who always get along with everyone, do not cause trouble, always have a smile, but are unable to reveal their real any negative feelings, even to themselves, are much more prone to these types of diseases.

Get such a person drunk and the emotional inhibition would drop. Alcohol is simply a chemical. But it's not in our arsenal. We may not have the chemical regulation processes to mimic those effects, so placebo would have no mechanism to tap into. Maybe we do have such a mechanisms, I'm not sure. Suppression of emotion and the associated stress would most likely increase cortisol, on an episodic basis. But one episode could domino effect, to a greater or lesser degree. That would deteriorate health and cause the problems listed.

To say that "anger manifested itself in anger toward the body" is idiopathic philosophy. Of course those words are applicable to what happens, but they do nothing to explain the underlying mechanisms. That's assuming he didn't explain the underlying mechanisms(or attempt to). If he did, I apologize.

Interbane wrote: So I think placebo can effect a cure, but reality is far more complex and there are likely a ton of regulatory chemicals on both sides that would need to be considered.

The mind effecting a cure, rather than acting as a palliative for the illness, or enabling the person to do more to help himself, is the matter I'm not sure about. I wonder about evidence for a direct link. I wonder about the possibility of harnessing the immune system through acts of the mind after cancer is already present. Or is the immune system involved mainly in prevention.