Religion and "Alternative Medicine" share Common ground

Unfortunately, medicine has always been intertwined with some degree of supernatural and superstitious bullshit. The medical field has over time become more rational and fact based. There is now a distinction between actual medicine and pseudo-medicine. Even though we may never be able to completely purge faith-based nonsense from real medicine it is important to continue to expose the garbage that now gets labeled "alternative medicine".

A recent Religious News Service piece, "Reiki goes mainstream: Spiritual touch practice now commonplace in hospitals", reported that:
"Like acupuncture, yoga and other once fringe practices, Reiki is now viewed by many as an effective, accepted alternative practice in mainstream America, where at least 1.2 million adults have tried the energy healing therapy."
That is fucking scary. Yet, there is some hope. Even religious reporters can still be honest about such bogus treatments. Mr. Sacks does refer to these practices as "fringe" and throughout his writing you get a sense of mild skepticism. It would be great if a higher level of critical thinking were applied but that is not likely.

Skepticism and critical thinking are a threat to both alternative medicine and religion for similar reasons. Faith requires ignorance. Both alternative medicine and religion are entirely built on faith. They also both can be potentially very harmful not just to their practitioners and followers but to all of us. The sheer amount of resources wasted on this nonsense is damaging. The fall-out in terms of its impact on thinking and social interactions is even greater. And, all that is before you contemplate the physical damage it can lead to or allow.

Note:
For more on Reiki I find the following podcasts to be interesting and informative.

Skeptoid: Your Body's Energy Fields

Skeptoid: Therapeutic Touch

Oh No Ross and Carrie: Ross and Carrie Creep People Out: Reiki Test Edition

A tepid but welcome admission

Todd Green's Religion Now post "Are Religion Courses Harmful to Faith?" is certainly a welcome though indirect admission that religious literacy is actually a threat to religious beliefs. He hedges in a number of ways. He is very careful to couch his assertion that religious courses can be problematic to faith in specific yet bland terms. Green tends to imply that it is generally bad for more "orthodox" approaches to religion thereby leaving himself plenty of wiggle room to insulate more liberal forms of religious beliefs. Anyone who adheres to a consistent and intellectually honest approach to critically reviewing all forms of religion should see that, though its immediate impact is felt strongest among the conservative brands, religious literacy is equally damning to all versions of religious belief.

A Museum to Inspire Cognitive Dissonance

"New Gettysburg museum explores role of faith in Civil War"
The museum in question seems to play on an all too common approach to history and religion. Faith ends up being used as a propaganda tool devoid of any critically thinking or any thought at all. I do find history inspiring and I am pleased that there is another museum opening but the primary goal seems a bit skewed. It doesn't, of course, occur to people that the premise of the article and that of the museum actually supports a basic criticism of religion in general. Faith can be used to justify and/or gloss over anything! This is apparently the opposite of what some intend.

“'People have found it comfortable to find a way to think about the Civil War in terms of valor and heroism,' said Barbara Franco, executive director of the museum. 'We want to really look at these other parts of it — causes, consequences — and leave people thinking there’s more to this than just the simple answers.'”
Simple answers is what religion/faith does best. It is incredibly rare that religious leaders encourage their followers to go beyond simple answers. In fairness, the leaders of many other institutions and social constructs often push such thoughtless simplicity as well.

Personally, I fail to see how pushing faith any further is going to help anyone gain more insight into history or contemporary society. Our culture has always been saturated with religion. Despite the tacit claims that this is somehow a unique approach for a museum, there are plenty of sources of information that already focus on faith's impact from the point of view of theism. Perhaps what we really need is a museum that looks into the negative aspects of faith. Even better would be a museum that shows both the positive and the negative under one roof. That would be unique.

Sad Disturbing View of Love and Faith

It was nice to read how quickly Maren Stephenson responded to her husband's admission that he no longer believed in God by saying, "You are more important to me than the Church." Some of her doubts about that expression are both sad and disturbing. In the end she seems to handle his and her own transition pretty well.

It still is upsetting to think that there are those who have such doubts about the value of love. I won't pretend to understand what either of them went through since I have never had any faith. That said, I find any "church", "religion", or "faith" that actively seeks to diminish the value of love or impede it in any way as truly despicable. We need more love in the world not less. Claiming that love is somehow sinful or wrong only serves to demonstrate the pettiness of that particular version of religion. 

It also seems strange since virtually every aspect of Faith is intangible and therefore unproven. If you love someone there is proof of it all around you. Just the fact that your partner is quite literally right there with you. People can talk about God and religion in anthropomorphic terms but that is all metaphor and symbolism. Even as a believer, you cannot literally hold God's hand. I happily go to bed and wake up next to my wife. Even if I was a believer I find it hard to see how I could view religion as more important.

Any religion that seeks to place itself as being greater than love is not deserving of any respect from believer or non-believer

Faith, Religion, and Organized Religion

Faith, Religion, and Organized Religion are all inter-related terms. That, however, does not mean they are completely interchangeable. Last weekend the Bangor Daily news ran a very misleading article that not only implied that these three are all identical but also repeated a number of myths and misconceptions.

"Got faith? Maine the least-religious state in the nation" starts from a false premise. It is assumed that lack of a specific religious affiliation means a lack of religion. This is not true. Plenty of people continue to believe in God and a variety of other religious concepts without the need to identify with a specific denomination/sect or regularly attend religious services. A more accurate title and tone would follow that Maine is the least religiously affiliated. Personally, I wish it were true that my state were the least "religious." Unfortunately, there is no real evidence to support such a claim.

The article quickly moves on to quote a reverend who, surprise, misrepresents our nations history.

“'What’s alarming about those numbers is that more than 300 years after the country was founded by people seeking religious freedom, the large numbers of nonaffiliated folks out here is just the norm,' the Rev. Steve Lewis, academic dean of Bangor Theological Seminary, said earlier this month."

There are two problems with this statement. What makes it alarming that people do not choose a specific affiliation? Wouldn't that prove that religious freedom is alive and well. Seems to me that being able to choose whether you want to associate with specific groups or find ways to satisfy any religious inclinations as you see fit is the epitome of freedom. Second, the early settlers did not come expressly for religious freedom. That is a myth. The "pilgrims" fled England for the Netherlands seeking religious freedom. They found the freedom they sought but quickly came to realize they had other non-spiritual interests and needs they felt could be better advanced elsewhere. Settlers came to America in search of better economic circumstances. There's no spirituality in economics. Then again, the "Prosperity Gospel," seems to preach otherwise.

I also found it interesting that the article noted the large numbers of people leaving the largest Christian denominations but never seemed to ask if they had good reasons for doing so. The tone seems to imply that not only is losing your specific religious affiliation negative but that it is equivalent to losing faith which is also negative. This just seems wrong on every count. Mainers are still overwhelmingly believers. Considering how authoritarian religion tends to be and how frequently religion interferes in politics (virtually always for the worse) I'd say that lower rates of organized religion is a good thing.

The last section's subtitle is nearly as foolish as the headline the article starts with. "America’s religious landscape ‘radically changed.’" No, it isn't. The majority of Americans still believe in God and any number of other religious concepts and doctrines. The shift away from organized religion is occurring but it has not happened over night. All the trends mentioned in the article have been gradually developing for at least a handful of decades. There is nothing "radical" about gradual changes. It is certainly not radical in light of the fact that we are one of the last industrialized countries to undergo this shift.

Basically, the article consists of little more than sensationalized headlines and subheadings, misinterpreted statistics, and rehashed myths and misconceptions. It is the typical blather I have come to expect from the mainstream media.