Feb 28 2012
Religious Freedom vs Consumer Protection
A Christian church in New Zealand has put up a billboard on their property that proclaims: “Jesus Heals Cancer.” This has caused a bit of a stir and prompted a discussion about the limits of religious freedom vs protecting the public from false or misleading claims.
The Pastor, Lyle Penisula, holds that the claim is true. This is actually the easiest aspect of the this issue to deal with – is there evidence that “Jesus heals cancer?” No. The Pastor himself offers, of course, anecdotes – cases of people in his church who survived cancer. He admits that they completed whatever treatment regimen they were being given by their doctors, but seemed to entirely miss the point that therefore we cannot conclude that it was Jesus who healed them. They may have simply responded to standard medical treatment.
There has been a fair bit of research into intercessory prayer. The results are essentially negative. More studies are negative than positive, and the positive ones have critical flaws (although they seem to get more media attention). If there were a clinically significant effect from intercessory prayer the existing studies would have shown a more consistent and clearly positive signal. What we have is most consistent with no effect. The evidence is incompatible with the claim that “Jesus heals cancer.”
If we were talking about a medical product or service I think it is clear that no legitimate regulatory body would allow the claim of curing cancer based upon existing evidence. It would be considered false advertising or even medical malpractice. But in this situation we are not dealing with a practitioner or commercial product, but a church putting up a billboard on their own property.
Bevan and Jody Condin, who’s son has leukemia, took offense at the sign and lodged a complaint. I can understand why they would be offended at the brazen claims – but someone taking offense at a statement is not sufficient cause to limit free speech. In fact the legal protection of free speech is specifically designed to protect unpopular speech. Popular or inoffensive speech usually does not need protection.
The pastor has refused to take down the billboard, and in fact seems to be enjoying the media attention it is garnering (which was probably the point of putting it up in the first place).
In my opinion I think free speech and religious freedom take precedence in this case. The pastor is not telling his flock to throw away their medicine. He is not selling a product. Also it should be clear that this is a church making a statement of faith. Further, the Condins and anyone else are free to publicly criticize the church and point out that their faith-based claims are without evidence. I just don’t see a role for government regulation in restricting such faith-based statements. The claim that “Jesus heals” is very common in the Christian community. Adding the word “cancer” after that does not change the fundamental nature of the claim.
In order to challenge the church’s right to make that claim you would have to challenge the more fundamental notion of religious freedom.
I do think we can get into muddy waters with faith-based medical claims, however. The privileged position enjoyed by churches simply by stating that their beliefs are a matter of faith has been exploited by those who are really promoting some form of alternative medicine. L. Ron Hubbard, after publishing his book Dianetics, came under fire for practicing medicine without a license. So he decided to simply make his therapy into a new religion, Scientology, and suddenly he was immune to regulation. Tradition healers have also played the religion card, and many CAM practitioners mix spiritual claims into their therapies. Some try to have it both ways – to practice medicine on the one hand but hide behind faith on the other.
In my opinion what is most critical is to keep the two things entirely separate. Religion and faith-based claims should be clearly presented as such, and not seek to insert themselves into the healthcare industry in any way. Legitimate medical treatments, by the same token, cannot claim to be faith-based in any form, and must adhere to the strict standards of science and ethics that govern modern medicine. That is the real lesson of this story, and we have to be vigilant about the CAM movement’s attempts to blur the lines between science and faith when it comes to medicine.
56 Responses to “Religious Freedom vs Consumer Protection”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
this is a really interesting topic. i have looked into intercessory prayer before (see blog post). one thing that i find very curious is the STEP study (2005, benson et al), which is one of the newer and more robust trials looking at intercessory prayer. it showed that patients who knew they were receiving prayer suffered from higher complication rates. i do not want to draw too much meaning from one study, but i couldnt help myself from thinking that maybe these patients were less compliant with their post-surgical cardiac rehab because they thought a higher power was taking care of them.
http://dfreedm.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/prayer-in-medicine/
I agree that we can’t limit freedom of speech or religious freedom and this situation represents both. It also represents a certain level of false advertising, and so it would seem that noting on the billboard that the statement is faith based would not be an unwarranted regulation.
The problem with that type of regulation is that it once again allows people to stop using their own brains. We have protected the population to the point that they no longer want to take responsibility for their own decisions.
It takes very little rational thought to recognize that billboard is a religious statement of faith not science. If we add some small print at the bottom telling people its a statement of faith, now we remove even that level of critical thought on the part o the populace.
The flipside is that if he can heal cancer, he must also allow people to get cancer and die of it. Thats not much of a selling point, really. In this case, lodging a complaint is also part of free speech, and I’m not sure where the idea of limiting the free speech of the church is coming from. Perhaps someone from New Zealand can shed some light on religion, free speech, and the laws in that country.
First a nitpicking note-
The last paragraph should begin with “In”- not- “I”.
There are different types of claims- scientific, faith based. personal (I like green more than red)…
If we can’t differentiate between them, then we are in too much trouble for any legislation to be of help.
How would we know if the legislation was helpful (a claim that would almost certainly not be scientific…)?
And what SARA said.
I wonder what family of cancer victims that lost their battle think of it….that person that died should not have read that harry potter book while getting chemo….that did them in for sure!
It’s worse than the claims they expressly make and can’t keep what is more. Churches that align themselves with biblical literalism should be held accountable; the book the advance states the same.
John 14: 8-14
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
So what eactly is the difference between “Jesus heals cancer” and “Laetrile cures cancer”.
Both are medical claims and both are false.
Why should they be treated differently?
Hi guys, this is my first post. I’m Connor and I live in New Zealand. We have pretty lax laws around freedom of speech and religious expression, but luckily religion is almost entirely keep out of government. This is not against the law, though it is gaining quite a lot of controversy in the media. It is bordering on false advertising, but religions have a medium amount of religious protection in the courts. Vandalism is quite a problem in New Zealand, so I would not expect this billboard to last for long.
It is not mentioned in the article what city it is in, but it is in Napier, a small town in the North Island of around 58 000 people. ccbowers, you are right, the complainant is well within their rights to complain about this. I hope I have answered your questions.
They should be treated differently because the mythical Jesus was not alleged to be a bitter crystalline compound, found in bitter almonds and the stones of peaches, apricots, and other fruit.
This was being discussed on an Australian morning show. All were against the sign being displayed. Their point was that the average person, reading it like any other piece of information they come across in a day, would be being lied too. They added that it could have easily been worded to promote the comfort that comes from prayer or just sharing with a large group, which may even help with healing.
These shows tend to tell the public what they want to hear and if this is the case, well, it made me feel proud to be an Australian.
As a Christian, I find the sign distasteful. The embodiment of perfect sacrificial love, and the incarnation of the Eternal Holy One is not let out as a dispensary.
We are all whole in Christ.
But yeah, get your ass to a doctor if you want to hang around in your body a little longer. (and pray you find a doc who knows what the hell he’s doing)
I think for probably the first time I disagree with you Dr. Novella.
I agree that freedom of (and FROM) religion and freedom of speech should always be safeguarded.
However, I disagree that this is a freedom of speech or religion issue.
This is a fraud issue. Making a concrete claim on a billboard that is verifiably false is fraud.
Making a claim that “Jesus hates homos” is inflammatory and hateful, but IS free speech (and freedom of religion).
If I had a billboard selling a car that would get 100mpg and it didn’t that would be fraud. Why would it be any different if I said the car got 100mpg because it was Jesus-ified and ran on faith?
The only difference I see is that one claim is marginally easier to test than the other.
Wow, I guess I really was bothered by that sign’s content. My comment really had nothing to do with Dr. Novella’s post!
I agree with those who say that we have to, unfortunately, trust the viewing public to discern what they will from the sign, because it is about religious freedom and freedom of speech. There’s nothing incendiary about the sign, except to people who have had cancer or have lost someone to cancer, or to atheists, or to other Christians (by virtue of their own faith or their own losses due to cancer). So, in the end, offensive to all. But some don’t realize it.
I guess I’m too selfish. I should probably care more about someone who might forgo medical treatment because of that church.
Honestly, I think that church is treading on thin ice based on scripture and really needs to do some self-examination. There may be people on this earth who have been healed through Christ, but it’s a sin to be a stumbling block to someone who hasn’t. (turning someone off to what Jesus is really about, and causing them harm by engendering false beliefs.) It’s just as bad as killing someone to try to convert them.
Knowing a bit about the slippery nature of the extraordinary claims of Christians, I am amused by comments that think that somehow these claims might be stopped by showing that they are false.
Probably the first defense that would be put up is “Yes we claim that Jesus will answer the the prayers for healing cancer,but sometimes the answer is “NO”.
Up next is the tried and true “You must truly believe in Jesus for healing to occur” Sorry,your faith just wasn’t strong enough.
And the never fails last ditch excuse of “It seems that Jesus had other plans for them” .
Ever tried to nail Jello to a wall on a summers day?
Oh,and if someone does survive..”Thank God almighty,it’s a miracle.Praise Jesus!!!”
“Ever tried to nail Jello to a wall on a summers day?” ha ha ha!
mmmmm….Jello
nybgrus-
I think fraud would become relevant if the church then sold cancer patients some Jesus to cure their cancers. In reality, they are just promoting their ideology with a ridiculous claim (theoretically anyways, in actuality its a publicity stunt).
For fraud there usually needs to be an intentional deception (therefore doesn’t apply true believers), for the purpose of (usually monetary) gain by the deceivers or to cause harm to others. One could argue about the deception and harm part of the equation, but without the connection of intent for the deception and resulting harm I think this falls well short of fraud
It’s not government property so government should not be interfering. It’s more complicated than that obviously but you’re right about him being able to say this as opinion.
However, i’m quite happy for there to be pushback from all quarters on this. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. Nor freedom from consequences. In the long run he is hurting his own religion with such pathetic, lying claims.
Actually he is. By definition, if “Jesus heals cancer” then you don’t need medicine.
What are people going to remember? The anecdotes about how people prayed AND took medicine, or a large 3 word billboard that conveniently forgets the small print.
A traditional acupuncturist who firmly believes in qi, meridians, and acupuncture points, puts a sign up that reads “Acupuncutre heals cancer”.
Why is your reaction different?
Let me suggest that you are treating the claims of religion differently from all other claims. You are giving religion special dispensation. And you are doing it without any reason why.
ccbowers: “The flipside is that if he can heal cancer, he must also allow people to get cancer and die of it. Thats not much of a selling point, really”
God gives you cancer but if enough people beg really, really hard…well, he might let you off.
Thinking about it, isn’t prayer an insult? If God and JC gave little Timmy bowl cancer they must have had a good reason. Who are we to question their divine judgement? Do we think they made a mistake? Should they have given it to little Jimmy instead?
Oops. ‘Bowel’ not ‘bowl’…
ccbowers-
Actually intent is not necessary for fraud. Jann Bellamy has covered that over at SBM a few times. Being a true believer does not absolve you.
However, you are right – there does need to be “harm” which can come in either monetary or personal harm which then makes it is a tort case eligible for fraud.
If one person suffers a worse outcome because they do throw away their meds that is pretty clear.
However, if someone prays and takes all the standard treatments and still dies (or suffers an outcome worse than average) I would say that the pastor is still legally liable for fraud. Because the claim is nebulous and untestable, my claim that the prayer in fact killed my relative is also vague and untestable.
Of course in a tort case a plaintiff needs to bring the case to bear.
Also, freedom of speech (well, in the US anyways, not sure about NZ) does not cover speech which can lead to harm to the populace. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre is not protected by the 1st amendment. Neither would yelling “Beelzebub is coming to kill us all!” in the same theatre (well, assuming the theatre was full of people who believed in that possibility as much as fire).
Am I pushing the limits of fraud and free speech? You betcha. But I am happy to give no quarter to these sorts of claims.
**in thinking about it a little bit more I began to wonder if I had painted myself into a corner. I still may have, but I was thinking specifically of the “Jesus hates homos” or “homos are going to hell” signs. Those could also cause harm and are also indeed incorrect. However, the difference I realized is that we can demonstrate (and have) with scientific studies that prayer (or Jesus) have no affect on cancer. We can’t prove scientifically that hell and Jesus don’t exist, nor that Jesus who does exist doesn’t actually hate homos. I guess I just view the “Jesus heals cancer” as a much more concrete statement that is actually testable and thus able to be pulled out of the free speech and religion domain.
eiskrystal – except that in the interview the pastor specifically said that he tells people to continue whatever treatment their doctors are giving them for as long as they need them. That’s a good way to CYA.
By the definitions of fraud that some are using here then all faith is fraud. Every church that takes a dime from a believer for telling them that they are the path to eternal life, etc. is committing fraud.
Keep in mind – I find faith intellectually offensive and counterproductive. I also firmly believe that a free and enlightened society must be secular. But I also believe in religious freedom. People have the right to believe whatever stupid thing they wish. Even beliefs that are demonstrably wrong. They just don’t have the right to impose those beliefs on others or on society.
The acupuncture analogy is the exact reason that I raised the issue of CAM in the article. CAM proponents cannot have it both ways. If they want to be part of mainstream medicine they have to be a secular and science based practice. If they want to be a religion and practice faith healing – then they are a religion, and should not present themselves as anything else, or expect insurance coverage, etc. They can’t have it both ways.
As a practicing Christian, I find that sort of thing deeply bizarre. What ever happened to using the brains God gave you, so to speak? I mean, I personally figure that if the good Lord had intended for us to rely on Jesus-ray handouts to cure cancer, he wouldn’t have given us brains that were capable of inventing chemo.
(PS: Not here to get into an argument about faith. I understand that most of y’all are atheists, and I’m totally chill with that. When it comes to science, and evidence-based medicine, I’m 100% on your side, ‘kay?)
“Actually intent is not necessary for fraud.”
Hmm. The precise definitions of fraud do vary by jurisdiction, but intent appears to be an important component (otherwise what distinguishes it from a negligent act? for example). Perhaps what you mean is that intent can be inferred from the actions taken and does not need to be demonstrated with evidence. Even taking intent out of the equation you are still left demonstrating that the statement about Jesus curing cancer as being a false statement. To me that is an untestable claim that I reject, but is not something that I can demonstrate.
I am no lawyer, but Jann is. And per the article Is CAM Fraud?:
Let’s consider more closely that first element: under what conditions is a misrepresentation considered fraudulent? That is largely a question of intent (or “scienter”)…Subsection (a.) describes what we colloquially call “lying.” But subsection (b.) and (c.) do not require actual knowledge that one’s statement is false to impose liability.
I would also agree that in the sense I am using all faith and religion are fraud. And I also agree that they are fraud. The only issue is that according to the necessary legal definitions, it falls under tort law which means a plaintiff needs to initiate the action and demonstrate harm. From the way I read it, the law would support someone suing a church for taking a tithe and promising an afterlife. I would support such a person, though it has (to my knowledge) never been tested that way. I think it would be an excellent precedent to set. I see it as being feasible on principle, but because of the majority thought and special privilege on matters of religion it may be practically impossible. I still wouldn’t mind seeing it be tested and continued to be so until something gives.
It is not untestable. It has been tested. However you want to define Jesus or his capacity to heal cancer, the actual outcomes of cancer can be tested. If there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis then we can say that Jesus does not heal cancer.
That is why I differentiated it from the case of a billboard saying “Love Jesus or go to hell” – that is indeed untestable, since we cannot establish that hell exists, nor measure if people are going there, nor if loving Jesus is the way to avoid it. The same with the message that “Jesus (or God) hates homos” – once again, we can’t establish that Jesus exists in the first place, let alone what his personal feelings on homosexuality are.
However, we can establish that cancer exists and we can track and document its progression or regression – hence, establish a test to see if Jesus heals it. And of course, the mechanism is unimportant – we can always track an outcome. So however Mr. Priest says it works, we can test it. Anything else is special pleading – much like my car analogy.
It would still be fraud if I gave you the car for free and when it didn’t deliver said you just “didn’t believe hard enough.” I would have to demonstrate harm done to me in order to have it fall under tort law, but the promise that Jesus fuel would get me to work, and then it failing and me getting fired would be harm.
I realize that I am pushing the boundaries of the definition here. But as not just an atheist but an anti-theist, I am happy to do so in order to cripple the strangle hold that religious and fantastical thinking has on the politics and legislation of this country.
actually, I realize that I probably went a bit too far… I think under the argument I made, taking tithe and promising an afterlife cannot be fraud since we can’t actually establish that an afterlife exists or not. From an intellectually honest and skeptical standpoint, of course it doesn’t. But that wouldn’t apply here (I think). A better option would be taking a tithe and promising a “better life” or some sort of healing or and sort of specific change that can actually be measured (much like how Peter Popov is a fraud and has been convicted as such).
nybgrus
I noticed that your quote indicates that it is “largely a question of intent,” which was my original statement. This intent can sometimes be inferred from actions.
Regarding:
“It is not untestable. It has been tested. However you want to define Jesus or his capacity to heal cancer, the actual outcomes of cancer can be tested.”
You can measure outcomes, but you cannot manipulate the important variable: Jesus. You can’t test something that doesn’t exist. If no effect is found, it is compatible with Jesus not wanting to heal those cancers. Unless they claimed that Jesus cures the cancer of those who join this church, the claim is not specific enough to test
Nybgrus
Remove the “you can’t test something that doesn’t exist” from my comment. That sentence by itself is incorrect, but was written in a context that I didn’t explain. All in all, I don’t really think we are in disagreement, but I think you are overstating your case a bit
Nybgrus- I would guess that most of us are sympathetic to your antipathy toward those who would use such a claim to take advantage of people who are in a vulnerable position.I have actually been in that situation,and I fully understand.
The problem,as I (possibly filppantly) alluded to above,is that the claim that “Jesus (god or whatever) heals cancer”,as ccbowers has pointed out, is just non-specific enough to give wiggle room,because nowhere does it state that Jesus WOULD cure cancer,or that Jesus alone would cure cancer.
If pressed,the pastor could argue,”I never said that anyone should forgo medical treatment,because Jesus guides us to whatever healing methods we need”. The rest is upon the ‘believer’,and their relationship with God” (not intended to be a factual statement).
You see,in our (U.S.) culture,these ubiquitous platitudes are so common,that it is equivalent to saying “Knock on wood”,or “Good luck”.They may give people some sort of faux confidence at varying levels,but most people sense that on a deeper level,it is more like of an expression of hope for the person who is facing a serious illness,and the only recourse that people who care for them actually have to fall back on.
If Jesus doesn’t exist – how do you test something he’s purported to do?
I just watched the video (somehow I missed that as available). I’ve changed my mind. I think the church is ridiculous, but so are the people who are getting all worked up and offended about it. It’s not actually a billboard, it’s a sign on a church. Unless you think Jesus is a doctor who’s doing false advertising, why get worked up about it? I think what’s really going on is that people who see that and think it infers that they’re not faithful, and that’s why they’re sick, are insulted. But why be insulted if you don’t believe Jesus exists? So now I’m thinking that only Christians have a right to be outraged – if they believe in Jesus, but think he shouldn’t be advertised as healing cancer. What do you atheists think? You know Jesus doesn’t exist, so what’s wrong with someone saying “the tooth fairy heals cancer” It’s stupid, but not offensive, right? Is your indignation for the ignorant who might be harmed? Let me assure you, Christians are hypocrites in this matter. If anyone were to go to that church to be healed of cancer, you can be sure they would be advised to utilize their doctor. Here’s what they say: Jesus utilizes medicine to bring his healing. This hypocrisy is what atheists are so great at pointing out. I love atheists! Jesus himself was crucified partly for pointing out the hypocrisy of his own church, which censored him for healing people on the sabbath (amongst other things). The truth is more important than “religion”. Look, Christians are ridiculous. I myself am a ridiculous Christian. Having said that, I’m thinking now too that for some people ridiculousness can be offensive. So, let me apologize for the ridiculousness of these fellow Christians.
Dr. Novella: “I find faith intellectually offensive and counterproductive.”
I find that everybody has faith in someone or something. Some place their faith in science and in the ability to know the physical world. Others in God. Others in their spouses or church or other authority. Some in their own minds. Some have faith in their fellow academics. Some have faith in all of these things at the same time, and that faith serves to temper what is produced by each. To my way of looking at it, faith is required for all production beyond that of offspring and excrement. What you believe in determines what you do and the very fact that you do it. So, faith may be counterproductive by one standard, while being productive by another. Faith in the equality of rights for individuals can be the impetus behind a movement for social justice. Faith can also be the impetus behind discrimination (faith that some individuals are inherently inferior to others). Limiting the concept of “faith” to theology disguises the fact that everyone operates in faith of some sort. Our task as “intellectuals” is to sort out what is most beneficial in what it produces (which takes another kind of faith! – in our decision-making regarding “beneficial”.)
In the end we are trusting in things that we can’t really know: ourselves and reality. (I understand this is a philosophical statement, as I said, some people have faith that we can know reality-to me it remains an open question, and this is what grants us the eternal joy of science: forever seeking to understand ourselves and the world around us: a growing awareness of reality.)
@mlema:
I find that theists like to stick the word “faith” everywhere were it doesn’t belong, because to them what people like myself and Dr. Novella do appears to be “faith.” That is false and based on a loosening of the the meaning of the word and an intentional and unintentional blind eye to aspects that negate the concept entirely.
I do not have faith in science. I have developed trust in science because of its consistent track record for the best outcomes and understanding of everything around us and because I understand how it works in principle. I do not blindly assume that science does something – I have spent my entire life experiencing and understanding the evidence to support it as the best possible way to understand the universe. Show me a better way with evidence to back it up and I will be a convert in a hot minute.
I do not have faith in my spouse. I rely on her based on years of evidence and demonstration that she is reliable. I do not have faith that she can or will do something – I have evidence of her ability and desire to do it (for herself or for me).
I have seen the product of my mind. I still often, however, ask people for verification that I am not incorrect in my thinking or off base or lacking in my understanding. I do this because I know that I am prone to and unable to avoid the same cognitive biases that anyone else is. Depending on how important the matter is, that is how rigorously I attempt to indepently verify my own mind and thoughts by whatever means are best, most convenient, and most reliable.
I do not have faith in fellow academics. I have tentative trust in them based on their position, and seek evidence to confirm or disconfirm this. The more important it is that I confirm/disconfirm it, the more vigorously I seek the evidence. Once I have made an ascertation, then I espouse a trust level commensurate with the role and level of evidence. If new evidence arises, I change my assessment of said academic.
I do not have faith that equality is the best way to achieve social justice and a better world – I have evidence of it. I can look at places like Darfur, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Iran and compare them to places like Sweden, Denmark, Australia, and even the United States and see clear differences along a continuum. There are studies on the effects of equality and inequality that demonstrate improved metrics in quality of life, crime, disease, mortality, and morbidity.
Faith is limited to theology. People who genuinely have “faith” in the things you are describing are taking lazy shortcuts and are wrong by accident. They have gotten the right answer by the wrong means and thus will usually not be able to find new correct answers. That is why you can find people who are atheists (right answer on God) and believe that blacks and whites are equal (right answer on racial issues) but still be against gay marriage (wrong answer on LGBT issues) because they arrived at the first two answers by going on a faith that certain others were correct and merely got lucky but did not have the same luck for the third answer.
Our task as intellectuals is to realize that we all take such lazy shortcuts and use “faith” to come to some answers and decisions. And then to take that realization and minimize how often we do it, and ensure we never do it for important issues.
And by the way, the best way “to sort out what is most beneficial in what it produces” is to actually use evidence and the scientific method to determine it, entirely short-circuiting your faith circuit here.
In other words, I may believe that [X] is the most beneficial… but until I have evidence I cannot assert it as correct, and should it be important enough I should seek evidence, and should the evidence demonstrate I was wrong in my belief I should then change my belief. In other words, I never had faith I was correct, but “belief” can be a useful hypothesis generator… and nothing more… and only when it is recognized as nothing more than a hypothesis generator and most certainly not an answer generator.
We are using converging lines of actual evidence to come to the best answers we can, all while acknowledging that with sufficient evidence anything can be overturned. Over the centuries, we have learned a few things that are so well supported that the likelihood of them being overturned is infinitesimal. We have good reason to trust these things… but never faith.
sorry, in the 6th paragraph that should be “they are right by accident”
I should also add that there are processes that are straightforward enough that we can skip all the steps (consciously) that we would normally use to determine an answer and thus feel as if we are acting on faith and getting the right answer. But we are not. We are either unconsciously doing the same thing as an actual scientist does when (s)he does actual science, or merely lucky we landed on the right answer.
Faith is defined as the extreme form of trust, but trust is not otherwise the same as faith. Trust is relative to circumstances, and open to suspicion. Faith unfortunately cannot countenance suspicion.
nybrus,
faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
I know that Dr. Novella is using “faith” as defined 3rd, 5th above. I guess in the context of his article I should have realized that. So, I guess if you read my comment and apply the 1st, 2nd or 4th definition, my comment will make more sense.
I’m better at English than I am at science. I’m just not used to people using the word faith in the way atheistic scientists do (that is: faith is equivalent to religious belief)
In my comment I’m talking about confidence or trust in a person or thing.
I think that trust and confidence that’s based on reason is a highly evolved sort of faith. So, I would say you are a highly evolved person (again you can see I use “evolved” in the vernacular here). I think, too, that I would be interested in having you explain your last comment. I’m wondering if this is really what I was getting at in my comment about everyone acting on faith at a certain level.
thanks nybgrus
cwfong,
“Faith is defined as the extreme form of trust, but trust is not otherwise the same as faith. Trust is relative to circumstances, and open to suspicion. Faith unfortunately cannot countenance suspicion.”
I see you can say something sensible on occasion.
(No match for nybgrus though)
Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer.
Mlema-
Your comment on faith is an example of a logical fallacy- equivocation. You are using the word faith in different circumstances without acknowledging (and perhaps recognizing) that you are using a different meaning of the term. Faith when used in a religious context is a very different concept (only somewhat similar) than the way it is used in your other examples. It just happens that in the English language the same word “faith” can have these different meanings. Perhaps in other languages these different concepts may have different words to describe them.
Equivocation can be very misleading and can lead to incorrect conclusions by creating a false sense of similarity between different situations
I sometimes think that cwfong is getting smarter, or perhaps it is topic specific. One thing is constant, he has a special affection for BJ7 (I gather the feeling is mutual)
Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,
Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike;
Alike reserv’d to blame, or to commend,
A tim’rous foe, and a suspicious friend.
miema, equivocation is not in and of itself a fallacy. Especially when an equivocator equivocates in great detail to assert the opposite.
ccbowers – I’m not using the word faith to represent religious faith and then giving it another meaning. Whenever I said “faith”, I meant it in exactly the same way each time. I’m using the first meaning in the definition I copied in. I may be comparing religious faith to the faith that every person places in something or someone. Please show me the equivocation. Please tell me what incorrect conclusions I’ve drawn.
Are you saying that I’ve created “a false sense of similarity between different situations”? Are you saying that religious faith is different than trust in someone or something? I don’t see that. Religious faith is trust in God. Faith in science is trust in man’s ability to learn about how the physical world exists. People can argue ’til the end of time over whether they are the same kind of faith. I think that’s the argument I seem to have started. All I’ve asserted is that everyone operates on faith of some kind. One way or another we come to trust various things and operate on that trust (see definition again) We either choose this faith consciously or it operates out of instinct and emotion. Either way it’s there, and if you say it’s not I think maybe you’re just not aware of it.
thank you
I appreciate that you’re maybe trying to defend my equivocation? But I don’t think I did any equivocating. And heaven help me if I’m really trying to make a logical argument.
(that was for cwfong)
Logic? We have no logic. We don’t need no logic. We don’t have to show you any stinking logic.
ccbowers, nybrus,
If you understand what my definition of the word faith is (from definition above) you will understand why Dr. Novella’s comment about faith being intellectually offensive sounded so off to me. Now that it’s been made abundantly clear that on this site faith=religion, I understand why it didn’t sound off to anybody else. But I still don’t get why what I said would stir up argument (unless no one can understand what the general meaning of the word faith is! or, having understood it, cannot accept that “confidence or trust in a person or thing” operates in their own life.) Does it imply weakness? i don’t want to appear weak either. enlighten me. Is it that no one wants to have what they put their confidence and trust in compared to religion? I understand that. But God is not the same as science, so what’s the rub?
PS – nybrus, never have i thought that what you and Dr. Novella do looks like faith. And it’s you and Dr. Novella who are using the word “faith” in the wrong way. There is religious faith, or Christian faith, etc. but just saying “faith” to represent belief in God is too assumptive. (but my mistake, I admit, for not realizing the intent on this site, where the word “skeptic” also takes on a meaning not original to the word)
Although faith can be used in different ways it is often distinguished from trust or confidence in that faith does not require evidence or a rationale for that type of “trust.” Really that is the distinction that is behind the isuue, not whether the subject is religious or not
People who believe in God find their own evidence and make their own rationale. Scientists take theirs from the physical world and from their intuition and powers of reason. Again, we can argue til the end of time over the differences (which are abundant), but in the end, these are acts of faith.
I accept that someone can be so intelligent and reasonable that they really can’t see how these things can share faith, because belief in God is so ridiculous. But I still say the priest and the physician both operate on faith in the end.
Maybe I am pushing too hard on a philosophical understanding. Faith in the reality of existence is a given here? that’s OK with me, but if that’s cut out of consideration, I automatically lose this “argument” (which is fine with me)
Miema,
Faith, when used in reference to complete trust, does require evidence for that trust. Soldiers in battle have faith in their long trusted comrades as just one example. If the meaning is clear from the context, the choice of words to set the mood, etc., is optional.
In my opinion of course.
Mlema:
I apologize for putting you on the defensive unnecessarily. If used strictly in the 1st definition then that is fine. I am not particularly keen on the 2nd definition either, except for the clause at the end essentially making it a hypothesis generator.
However, in common vernacular faith means “belief without evidence.” And even moreso, none of the definitions you have outlined include evidence – even #1, while it leaves room for evidence being the basis of that trust, does not imply it nor require it.
We here find faith repugnant – not because it is associated with religious faith, but because the most commonly used definition in the most commonly used context is “belief without evidence.” Your assertion that religious people use their own evidence for their faith falls flat – they are deluded and that is not evidence (but that is a whole different discussion).
While I like the word spirituality since it originally had nothing to do with magic and describes feelings I have from time to time quite well, I cannot say the same about faith. I suppose I would say that a campaign to have everyone use the word in your definition #1 sense would be on par with my campaign to reclaim spirituality in the Sagan sense. I don’t see it happening though, and I would just as well have the word struck from the lexicon. Chalk it up to personal preference.
And the reason I responded originally as I did, is because the “scientists have faith too!” is a common argument, usually coupled with “atheism is just anothe religion.” And because genuinely, many of the faithful theists look at the examples I listed and think of them as nothing but pure faith, with no evidence to back them up. The common one is that I have faith that I love my spouse. No, I don’t – I have piles evidence to lead me to conclude I love my spouse. And so do many of these folks who genuinely believe it is pure faith – they are just blind to the fact that they see evidence… and demand it!
Hope that clears it up on my end of things.
In the light of day, I see that yours is the sensible viewpoint. Thank you for taking the time and effort to set me straight.
Though faith is repugnant, I cannot compliment you by calling you faithless, because that word means something much different than “without faith”. That is the treachery of the English language.
Have a beautiful and abundantly clear day!
Miema, you might like this item from molecular biologist, Susan Lindquist:
RESTORING MY FAITH
Spirituality is an innate and admirable human characteristic. It no doubt served us well in evolution. But, I fear certain perversions of that spirituality in theocratic dogma might lead to our undoing, in nuclear Jihad or Armageddon. And oh yes, we have ethnic cleansing, global warming, new and reemerging pathogens, and the loss of antibiotic resistance. I confess I sometimes get downhearted.
And then I catch a revelatory talk at a scientific meeting, hear from a colleague about some amazing new develop- ment, or listen to a student or postdoc’s inspiring ideas … and I find myself feeling joyful.
The world’s most highly evolved life form is actually discovering how life itself works. How can we be so lucky as to find ourselves in the midst of it?
And perhaps the best part is that all the toil and inspira- tion just might provide keys to solving some of human- kind’s most terrible problems.
Cell biology, you restore my faith. Thanks!
http://www.molbiolcell.org/content/21/22/3804.full.pdf
mlema:
I am always happy to try and explain myself to reasonable people. Thank you for taking the time to try and understand.
Hope you have a great day as well!
“I am always happy to try and explain myself to reasonable people.”
I think maybe there is a lesson for me in there somewhere.
The natural orders of things will be restored when someone eventually graffitis the phrase
“but hates amputees”
on the end.