Which brings us right back to my original question: What "placebo effect" / "optimism" does a religious person have that I don't?

Faith, and as unreasonable as seems has a positive effect on psychological health.

Philosophers 'confirmed' dualism? Please elaborate...

For people who simply don't doubt the existence of Hell, I'd imagine that it's very comforting to know that there is plenty you can do (or not do) to avoid going there and that there are people who can guide you to the correct course of action. So, I can imagine being very comforted by that in the same way that you might be comforted as a non-smoker of knowing that your chances of dying from lung cancer due to smoking are very very slight having followed good advice.

Muslims believe that Islamic wrong doers don't go to hell or "Jahannum", for them there will "paradise, beautiful virgins and young boys on the Day of Judgment" .... awesome... No, Islamic Hell is reserved for "Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Christians, no matter how pious and God-fearing they may have been." where they will fuel the fires of hell!

That must very comforting for Muslims. Not so much for Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Christians though.

But, the question is, why is that "health" any better than the mine, without faith?


Since I can't relate to that, at all, I will simply agree that the rest of your post is plausible.

Why are there young boys in Islam Heaven?
I get the virgins part, but the young boys?

I also don't get it, I thought they were reserved for the catholic priests

Even as someone who has very little respect for the Catholic Church, I find this post -- inappropriate.

TBH, I don't think the main effects of religion are a placebo, especially if we allow that a percentage of those in attendance are mainly there for the social aspect.

I still attend Church with my wife and Children (for the time being, at least), even though I'm an atheist. All the pastors know I'm an atheist. I don't participate in worship, but I mostly enjoy the music. I also enjoy the sermon, but I discount the supernatural stuff and focus on the aspects which have practical application unattached to Christian dogma. This is really easy to do, imo. Listen to a Joel Olsteen sermon sometime, and you'll hear a lot of practical/motivational stuff which applies to a broad set of circumstances. You just have to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

I bet even Splendour wouldn't find it inappropriate. HST, I didn't mean to hurt your sensibility, sorry

I do think that religion generate a moderate placebo effect in people. However, you and Akileos have made a pretty good point that I was underestimating, that some main effects of religion are correlated to the social aspect.

Most philosophers (in the analytic tradition anyway) today do not take dualism seriously. It has almost no high-profile defenders in the contemporary academy.

You keep saying that. I disagree.

And if there are no gods, then what else could it be?

I don't discount that there is some placebo, especially among those that participate in faith healing. But that's not the point I'm emphasizing.

As an example, learning to forgive and not harbor bitterness is something every church I've ever been a part of teaches, and it's good practice. As a specific example, unresolved anger is the undoing of many people. We see it every day. So when someone at a church confides in another member/pastor about unresolved anger, they will be told to forgive and ask forgiveness in return. If they follow through, they will often testify that they are free of the burden, even if their forgiveness was not reciprocated. Beyond that, there is an inherited support system that comes with belonging to a church. Have a goal? Let it be known, and you will have encouragement and support.

Those outside the Church tend to look at it critically, emphasizing the crazies who focus on faith healing, word of faith, micro-not-macro evolution, and literalest fundies. And those groups should be ridiculed. What is most often discounted is that most Church-going folk genuinely love each other, and want nothing but the best for their community. This kind of support system is not a placebo, but exists where ever there is a strong community bond. Churches just happen to be much, much better at this than the secular community.

I agree with this (blog.rongarret.info/2009/04/hooked-on-god-religion-as-drug.html

Religion has a placebo effect whether or not gods really exist. Given the nature and effect of that placebo, I'd argue that it's not possible for a non-believer to replicate it. However, I'd also suggest that non-believers are less likely to require it in the first place.

Why are you listing, as an example that presumably is intended to reflect religion in a positive light, something that we all are capable of doing, and regularly do.

Are you saying that no matter the wrong done, if I talked to a member/pastor I would simply be 'told to forgive'? Seems a waste of time to bother asking doesn't it.

Lots of people love each other, lots of non-religous communities exist. Again and again I see given as defences of religion, behaviours that would exist without religion but that are used in an attempt to offset all the harm that religion causes. I would agree that "Churches just happen to be much, much better at this than the secular community" with the qualification that churches/religions are also much much better at creating divisions, even within their own communities. Divisions that often lead to war and misery.

Would you claim that "X teaching Y" can not be used to reflect positively or negatively on X, if it can be shown that Y is something all are capable of doing?

People not understanding what the placebo effect is ITT

Not that you realize it, but you just agreed with everything I said.

In your equation is X something that also causes Z (Z = great harm, so you should have put X teaches Y and Z) and so I'd rather have Y without needing X to get there or have to suffer Z as a result of X?

Especially when Y is an inherent property.

Who?

I think one main point that people are missing is that the non-believers mostly don't need the placebo in the first place. I'm have no fear of the reality of life and don't need what religion provides. It's tricky to simulate something I don't need and can't experience the desire for.

No, you need to read my post again. There is a significant issue that you're entirely missing.

No, I didn't. You raised a tangent which has nothing to do with placebo.

Keep it on topic, man.

This is speculation, I don't think psychology works like that.

Ok, what aspects of the religious placebo can be applied to non-believers? Why would I need it?


I responded to your explanation of how wonderful some aspects of the church are which at best could be described as trying to prove that religion isn't all placebo. Since no one was saying that, and it isn't relevant to the OP....

..you keep it on topic. Man.

Pointing out that a Church is good at doing some things that can also be achieved by the secular community is perfectly on topic, as it refutes the notion of 'placebo'. The reason the OP sees it as a placebo when the Church does it is because things like accountability, encouragement, and support are inherent in their model whereas they are likely lacking in the secular model.