Healings Scientific Study

[Eldwynn]

You're not a very good mind reader, Eldwynn. You're right that I don't think there's a valid way to do a scientific study on this topic, but that's precisely because I've put my 'beliefs on the line' repeatedly through personal exercise of the priesthood. Do you think I wasn't a bit nervous to tell a large family to travel 300km to be with someone who was supposedly going to die on a particular day? What if I had been wrong? Trust me; my beliefs were on the line.

If you had been wrong, you would have just said that god changed his mind. It would have not have shaken your faith in the slightest.

I used to work as a "professional mind reader" out of High school. I got pretty good at cold reading. If you don't know what that is, it's basically just guessing. The important thing is that being close counts. Sometimes I would hit it spot on- which was amazing to everyone except myself. If I was totally wrong, I would shrug off and continue. It's a bit of a numbers game.

It doesn't fully relate to this issue, but the part about being close IS relevant. If someone prays for rain, and they get snow- it's close, so it counts. Your faith was not on the line, just like conspiracy theorists (like those who questioned Obamas birth place) did not alter their beliefs in the slightest when proof was offered up (oh it must have been a fake etc.).

No amount of being wrong is going to convince you that god doesn't have a plan for you. Had the person not died, you would not have had a crisis of faith. Cool story though.

[Uncertain]

Why is that position more problematic than the claim that there are sick people who aren't healed only because they didn't get a priesthood blessing?

Hi Cinepro,

Well in my view it isn't. I also think that "the claim there are sick people who aren't healed only because they didn't get a priesthood blessing?" is extremely problematic and have argued so on this board several times. I believe the last time was with Don Bradley (after his reconversion to Mormonism ). I was going to link the debate since clearly I won (I kid, I kid). But unfortunately that thread has gone to the great thread heaven in the sky and is no longer accessible.

Best,

Uncertain

[Brian 2.0]

I also think that "the claim there are sick people who aren't healed only because they didn't get a priesthood blessing?" is extremely problematic and have argued so on this board several times.

But you do understand that that claim is had, to some extent, by most Mormons and the Church, right?

[CV75]

If this experiment could be done, do you think there would be a higher recovery statistic to the data set that had a blessing?

If this experiment could be done without trifling with sacred things (D&C 6;12) I think there would be a higher recovery rate among those whose faith is placed in the Lord's will.

[Calm]

If this experiment could be done without trifling with sacred things (D&C 6;12) I think there would be a higher recovery rate among those whose faith is placed in the Lord's will.

An excellent way of stating it. I think I would agree with that...barring some implication I haven't thought of yet.

[Brian 2.0]

If this experiment could be done without trifling with sacred things (D&C 6;12) I think there would be a higher recovery rate among those whose faith is placed in the Lord's will.

Thank you for answering. And I guess in continuing the thought experiment, if the experiment was done and was repeatable and showed that there was no higher recovery rate, would that change your beliefs in regards to what a blessing can accomplish?

You don't need to answer that question if you don't want, but I ask because this topic was born out of the science and satan thread where a number of times it has been mentioned that science and religion don't overlap, etc. And while I agree that science can't prove or disprove God... it quite possibly can prove/disprove certain tenants of religious beliefs and thoughts. So there is interplay.

And the interplay can become very tricky if valid scientific evidence conflicts with a certain belief that one has faith in. And when confronted with that cognitive dissonance, people seem to go different ways:

• Discounting the science
• Discounting the belief
• Adjusting the belief slightly/or greatly to find harmony

I just don't buy the argument that science and religion work in two totally separate sphere. On a lot of stuff, they do, but there is overlap.

[Uncertain]

But you do understand that that claim is had, to some extent, by most Mormons and the Church, right?

Hi Brian 2.0,

I do indeed understand. Perhaps some background is in order. I was raised in the LDS church think it is a wonderful organization that produces by and large well adjusted moral individuals. However I do not believe many of it's truth claims. In other words I am not a TBM and would likely be considered a heretic if not apostate. Therefore I have no problem rejecting the idea that priesthood blessings heal the sick that otherwise would not be healed.

Best,

Uncertain

[CV75]

if the experiment was done and was repeatable and showed that there was no higher recovery rate, would that change your beliefs in regards to what a blessing can accomplish?

No, because I still need lots of practice in even the mechanics of all the things a blessing represents and then actually entails spiritually. It is not just an exercise in "I'm sick-I have faith-Bless me-You're blessed-I'm a) better/ b) worse according to the Lord's will." In any event, the faith exercised has to be in relation to "what is real," and I'm not sure the experiment actually identifies "what is real," only what we observe and interpret as the outcome. The outcome cannot be determined to be "real" if it isn't a function of faith and alignment with God's will.

A faith experiment is superior to a thought experiment, and that is what this probationary state means.

[CV75]

• Discounting the science
• Discounting the belief
• Adjusting the belief slightly/or greatly to find harmony

In this case, the science is OK; it's in the form of a thought experiment. The belief is also OK, it is part of the faith experiment. The adjustment is justification. Scientific justification requires a standard that requires constant upgrading because the experimenter's conclusions are never permanent. Spiritual justification requires a perfect standard that is revealed as the experimenter's conclusions take on a more eternal status. The best adjustment/justification occurs when the physical observations (the body) and the faith observations (the spirit) are inseparably connected in eternal glory.

[Brian 2.0]

In this case, the science is OK; it's in the form of a thought experiment. The belief is also OK, it is part of the faith experiment. The adjustment is justification. Scientific justification requires a standard that requires constant upgrading because the experimenter's conclusions are never permanent. Spiritual justification requires a perfect standard that is revealed as the experimenter's conclusions take on a more eternal status. The best adjustment/justification occurs when the physical observations (the body) and the faith observations (the spirit) are inseparably connected in eternal glory.

I've read this a number of time, and I don't quite make out what you are saying. It's probably my ignorance, so are you saying that there is one truth and both scientific and spiritual methods will get you there and it's okay to adjust (apply new knowledge from one to the other) as you progress toward that truth. So are you saying that in my example you would adjust the belief or no?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Hamba Tuhan why did the Apostle Paul tell Timothy to drink wine for his infirmities¿

The obvious answer, I would assume, is that Paul believed it would be helpful for Timothy.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I appreciate Hamba Tuhan's idea, and the church does teach the principle he is talking about, but it does go beyond it to allow for blessings that would not have happened if they had not asked (Humba, you may believe this already, sorry if I misunderstand you stance):

From the Bible Dictionary:

Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.

I agree with this. God won't tread on our agency; consequently, there are miracles which people miss out on by not having the faith to ask for them. That's why the Lord repeatedly told people that their faith had made them whole. One way of asking for a blessing is to ask for a priesthood blessing. As in the example I've chosen to share, however, absolutely everyone involved, including the non-members, staunchly believe that a miracle occurred and that God honoured the blessing my companion and I gave, and yet the blessed party died. In your proposed study, this event wouldn't show up in support of your proposition, and that's the major flaw. The only way to collect really valid data in this case is via personal experience.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If you had been wrong, you would have just said that god changed his mind. It would have not have shaken your faith in the slightest.

Thanks, Eldwynn, for once again attempting to read my mind and, this time, even telling me what my behaviour would be. Unfortunately, you're completely full of nonsense--though I suspect you've accurately projected yourself onto me somehow. My belief is absolutely predicated on what I've experienced, not the other way 'round. I've repeatedly said that, if it didn't work, I wouldn't believe it, and I mean it, having already abandoned a number of beliefs which, by my experience, don't work. It's how I've got to where I am now.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Deleted. Realised it didn't actually address Brian's point.

[Brian 2.0]

As in the example I've chosen to share, however, absolutely everyone involved, including the non-members, staunchly believe that a miracle occurred and that God honoured the blessing my companion and I gave, and yet the blessed party died. In your proposed study, this event wouldn't show up in support of your proposition, and that's the major flaw. The only way to collect really valid data in this case is via personal experience.

You are correct that this experience would not show up in the data, but that experience is not what I am testing for.

While there are multiple "blessings" that can come from Priesthood blessings (going peacefully being on of them), my test isn't to find out if blessings are beneficial. My experiment is targeted on Priesthood Blessings increasing the recovery/survival rates (blessings healing someone).

[Hamba Tuhan]

You are correct that this experience would not show up in the data, but that experience is not what I am testing for.

So whom exactly are you trying to persuade? If it's yourself, you should already have reams and reams of data built up from personal experience. If it's people who don't accept such things in the first place, they are likely--a la Eldwynn's paradigm above--to discount whatever correlation you might be able to come up with.

[Brian 2.0]

So whom exactly are you trying to persuade? If it's yourself, you should already have reams and reams of data built up from personal experience. If it's people who don't accept such things in the first place, they are likely--a la Eldwynn's paradigm above--to discount whatever correlation you might be able to come up with.

I'm not really trying to persuade anyone in regards to Priesthood blessings. My main point of this discussion is to talk about how science and religion can overlap in specific areas and discuss what that means or how you deal with that if the science and religion do not agree. The thought experiment isn't to disprove or prove blessing, but to discuss that larger point.

If the study was no longer theoretical though, I would be very interested in it. Personal experiences, even my own, can be quite skewed when you take confirmation bias into account. While my wife swears Airborne helps her get better faster from a cold, I would very interested if a study came out saying that Airborne helps contraction and recovery times of a cold no better than a placebo. I may stop using and buying Airborne. And while I may still let my wife buy and use Airborne, even for the placebo effect, I may have to have a larger discussion if the price of Airborne suddenly went up to $100 a bottle.

on a side note, I think some studies were done on Airborne to that regard.

[Hamba Tuhan]

My main point of this discussion is to talk about how science and religion can overlap in specific areas and discuss what that means or how you deal with that if the science and religion do not agree.

Got ya.

[CV75]

I've read this a number of time, and I don't quite make out what you are saying. It's probably my ignorance, so are you saying that there is one truth and both scientific and spiritual methods will get you there and it's okay to adjust (apply new knowledge from one to the other) as you progress toward that truth. So are you saying that in my example you would adjust the belief or no?

I am saying that your example does not address all the facets of what my belief in priesthood blessings of the sick entails or means. My belief is more than just blessing = healing, so an experiment showing that blessings do not heal would not alter my belief in what blessing the sick means.

I'm also saying that a thought experiment is fine for what it is, but it has its limitations for discovering truth--we need to remember who is doing the proposing and the thinking. A faith experiment is much better and really has no limitations in finding truth.

Where there is one truth, spiritual faith uncovers it more thoroughly than scientific faith because spiritual endeavors have much broader and far-reaching applications than scientific endeavors.

Applying scientific and spiritual knowledge to each other is only profitable if the resulting adjustment (justification) is to Christ's standard, which is ultimately spiritual. So I think teh spiritual would always trump the scientific.

[Brian 2.0]

I am saying that your example does not address all the facets of what my belief in priesthood blessings of the sick entails or means. My belief is more than just blessing = healing, so an experiment showing that blessings do not heal would not alter my belief in what blessing the sick means.

As stated in Post #65 the experiment is not about determine "value" of priesthood blessings, but ONLY the facet of "blessings=healing"

I'm also saying that a thought experiment is fine for what it is, but it has its limitations for discovering truth--we need to remember who is doing the proposing and the thinking. A faith experiment is much better and really has no limitations in finding truth.

Where there is one truth, spiritual faith uncovers it more thoroughly than scientific faith because spiritual endeavors have much broader and far-reaching applications than scientific endeavors.

Applying scientific and spiritual knowledge to each other is only profitable if the resulting adjustment (justification) is to Christ's standard, which is ultimately spiritual. So I think teh spiritual would always trump the scientific.

This is what I really want to discuss. To most Mormons, there are two type of ways of obtaining "truth." There is the scientific method the faith method (as outlined well in Alma 32). We believe in both methods and do not find them to be in conflict with one another for there is "one truth." Most faith method truths cannot be even experiemented on with the scientific methods, so there is not conflict. But sometimes there is overlap (blessings=healing). This issue is when these two methods come into conflict with each other. What trumps, and what gets adjusted?

You say that the faith method always trumps the scientific methods. And I think that is where agnostic scientist can get "upset" because they argue that they would see things your way if the proof was obtained through the scientific method, but you will not see things his way if the thing is disproven with the scientific method:

Agnositc #1:

AGNOSTIC SCIENTIST claims that there will be no increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there IS an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

AGNOSTIC SCIENTIST adjusts his claim and admits that priesthood blessings cause an increase in recovery rates (the reasons why could be further argued, but that is outside experiment)

Believer #1:

BELIEVER #1 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

BELIEVER #1 adjust his claim and admits that priesthood blessings do not cause an increase in recovery rates (but still believes there are benefits outside just "healing" for blessings)

Believer #2:

BELIEVER #2 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

BELIEVER #2 does NOT adjust his claim and says that there are healings associated with blessings and that the science is mistaken somehow

I think the Agnostic scientist will have a lot more respect with Believer #1, but have little to no patience with Believer #2.

The scientific method is not always perfectly reliable, but neither is the faith method. I think the agnostic scientists gets upset not at people that have faith, but people that will not adjust their faith in light of large amounts of scientific evidence brought forth by the scientific method (evolution for example).

[CV75]

I think the agnostic scientists gets upset not at people that have faith, but people that will not adjust their faith in light of large amounts of scientific evidence brought forth by the scientific method (evolution for example).

But neither the disciplined agnostic nor the disciplined believer will attach cosmic meaning to the results of the experiment, because they are both disciplined in something else already. The real proof is in the application of what they already accept as known or knowable, as reflected in how they treat each other with respect to each other's large amounts of evidence. Neither can grouse about the other for holding out for more evidence before either makes an adjustment.

[Brian 2.0]

But neither the disciplined agnostic nor the disciplined believer will attach cosmic meaning to the results of the experiment, because they are both disciplined in something else already. The real proof is in the application of what they already accept as known or knowable, as reflected in how they treat each other with respect to each other's large amounts of evidence. Neither can grouse about the other for holding out for more evidence before either makes an adjustment.

True about the disciplined agnostic or disciplined believer... it gets a little more complicated with a disciplined Mormon scientist.

[CV75]

True about the disciplined agnostic or disciplined believer... it gets a little more complicated with a disciplined Mormon scientist.

So we set up the thought experiment substituting the Agnostic and the Believer with a Disciplined Mormon Scientist:

Disciplined Mormon Scientist #1:

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST claims that there will be no increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there IS an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST adjusts his claim and admits that priesthood blessings cause an increase in recovery rates (the reasons why could be further argued, but that is outside experiment)

Disciplined Mormon Scientist #2:

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST #1 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST #1 adjust his claim and admits that priesthood blessings do not cause an increase in recovery rates (but still believes there are benefits outside just "healing" for blessing

Disciplined Mormon Scientist #3:

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST #3 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST #3 does NOT adjust his claim and says that there are healings associated with blessings and that the science is mistaken somehow

Believer #4:

BELIEVER #4 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

BELIEVER #4 adjust his claim and admits that priesthood blessings do not cause an increase in recovery rates (but still believes there are benefits outside just "healing" for blessings)

Believer #5:

BELIEVER #5 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

BELIEVER #5 does NOT adjust his claim and says that there are healings associated with blessings and that the science is mistaken somehow.

Assuming the disciplined Mormon scientist is also a “Believer,” the only significant complication I see is in the 3^rd set of conditions, in the event he finds himself in the quandary of arguing either in scientific terms (staying true to his scientific discipline) or spiritual terms (staying true to his spiritual discipleship) that the science is mistaken somehow. If he is not a “Believer” (at least on this point and is otherwise a believing LDS), then he simply takes on the role of the “Agnostic” for the purposes of this experiment and would treat the "Believer" well. The 4^th and 5^th sets would still require the brother scientist and brother believer in Christ to treat each other well, and assuming they are of equal belief, they would not attach cosmic meaning to the results.

It would seem the disciplined Mormon scientist, like anyone invested in their job / career / profession, has to keep his respective loyalties in perspective and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, so to speak. Many tend to compartmentalize until that day when all things have been sacrificed and the “adjustment (justification)” is realized.

[Brian 2.0]

So we set up the thought experiment substituting the Agnostic and the Believer with a Disciplined Mormon Scientist:

Disciplined Mormon Scientist #1:

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST claims that there will be no increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there IS an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST adjusts his claim and admits that priesthood blessings cause an increase in recovery rates (the reasons why could be further argued, but that is outside experiment)

Disciplined Mormon Scientist #2:

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST #1 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST #1 adjust his claim and admits that priesthood blessings do not cause an increase in recovery rates (but still believes there are benefits outside just "healing" for blessing

Disciplined Mormon Scientist #3:

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST #3 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

DISCIPLINED MORMON SCIENTIST #3 does NOT adjust his claim and says that there are healings associated with blessings and that the science is mistaken somehow

Believer #4:

BELIEVER #4 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

BELIEVER #4 adjust his claim and admits that priesthood blessings do not cause an increase in recovery rates (but still believes there are benefits outside just "healing" for blessings)

Believer #5:

BELIEVER #5 claims that there will be an increase in recovery rates of the priesthood blessing data set

REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS show that there is NOT an increase in recovery rates in the priesthood blessing data set

BELIEVER #5 does NOT adjust his claim and says that there are healings associated with blessings and that the science is mistaken somehow.

Assuming the disciplined Mormon scientist is also a “Believer,” the only significant complication I see is in the 3^rd set of conditions, in the event he finds himself in the quandary of arguing either in scientific terms (staying true to his scientific discipline) or spiritual terms (staying true to his spiritual discipleship) that the science is mistaken somehow. If he is not a “Believer” (at least on this point and is otherwise a believing LDS), then he simply takes on the role of the “Agnostic” for the purposes of this experiment and would treat the "Believer" well. The 4^th and 5^th sets would still require the brother scientist and brother believer in Christ to treat each other well, and assuming they are of equal belief, they would not attach cosmic meaning to the results.

It would seem the disciplined Mormon scientist, like anyone invested in their job / career / profession, has to keep his respective loyalties in perspective and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, so to speak. Many tend to compartmentalize until that day when all things have been sacrificed and the “adjustment (justification)” is realized.

I agree with your breakdown. I am not a disciplined Mormon scientist, neither are most of us, so it's good we don't have that job/career/professional relationship on the line. I also agree that most would probably compartmentalize like you say. It think you almost have to, otherwise you will lose one side or the other.

And that's the main point of this whole thread. Sometimes people are forced to do that. Interplay between science and religion can be a very real thing.

[CV75]

Interplay between science and religion can be a very real thing.

Yes, and so is any other vocation and means to understand and deal with life and the world around us. This is how Zion is a physical and temporal construct as well as a spiritual and eternal one. Zion then serves as an example in reconciling science (and other disciplines) and religion. Its adherents adjust or justify their perceptions, beliefs and knowledge to a standard that supports this world to the highest standard possible, and that also supports the yet-unseen world to its highest standard. Nephi said that all things are ultimately spiritual because all that which is real may not yet be seen without faith.