Fanning the flames of fear in Nashville
This is from the Los Angeles Times.
That line really shows how conservatives think. They would like to think they are looking for a strong leader. I tend to think this is might be the fear talking. Being so afraid, conservatives and their tea bag friends tend to prefer the paternalistic leadership style of a military commander than an educating professor.
Let’s see: paternalistic military commander or educating professor? I prefer education over killing. Then again, I’m a lover and not a fighter. I don’t live in fear of having the United States destroyed by terrorists. I am not afraid of being educated and having my beliefs challenged or changed.
Thankfully fear doesn’t control my life. It’s unfortunate that so many people in the United States are paralyzed by fear. It’s sad that these very people cling to paternalistic worldviews that give them permission to oppress and kill others to make them feel safe.
Soul to Soul
Despite my personal beliefs of spiritual openness and freedom, I never forget my native religious language of Christianity. I don’t let that limit me spiritually, but I also don’t exclude it from my worldview. Since I read many books about spirituality from many different faiths and traditions, I constantly have to check my natural Christian leanings and embrace many other ways of knowing. Most of the time, this is easy because I have plenty of practice. I respect another person’s spiritual journey and do not like being critical of it. I have no idea how the Divine is calling and forming that person.
This is the disclaimer I always consider when reading books about spirituality and one I had to use when reading Judy Weinberger’s book Soul to Soul: A Guide. This book is her understanding on why things happen from the soul’s perspective. Just as I speak and see the world through a native Christian lens, Weinberger does the same through a Jewish lens. Like me, Weinberger does not believe there is one correct or good religion. This allows her freedom to develop many interesting ideas about how one’s soul works—both before birth and during life—to help guide a person to a meaningful life. As an artist, Weinberger writes with accessibility often not used by most theologians. Ideas are simple, to the point, and reinforced by wonderful paintings created by Weinberger to help flesh out the concepts. These concepts include intuition, why bad things happen to good people, and letting go of hurt.
This book was a wonderful read that tacked many difficult concepts. Books like this are right up my alley: inclusive, spiritual, and personal. I drink books like this much in the same way I like to drink cow milk.
So here is the big however. As much as I am a spiritually open and free person, I have this other side that is steeped in a theological and philosophical background. This means that when I see something that is not quite right, I need to make note of it. There are two areas of this book that gave me pause: Weinberger’s mention of the Roman Catholic Immaculate Conception dogma and her endorsement of the illogical free will concept.
One needs to be careful in describing Immaculate Conception because it is not what most people think. Weinberger references Neville Goddard, who “compared the phenomena of visualization to the biblical story of the birth of Jesus” (73). Goddard kept referring to Immaculate Conception in regards to Jesus’ birth, Mary’s pregnancy, and the creation of one’s thoughts and ideas. My issue with this whole conversation is that Goddard, and eventually Weinberger, did not realize the Immaculate Conception is about Mary’s birth, not Jesus’ birth. I understand the point Weinberger is trying to express, and perhaps I am being fussy about this. However, it is weak scholarship when one continues to spread an error without bothering to research its validity first.
Weak scholarship is one thing, but weak philosophy is quite another. Weinberger is very clear that she believes in free will.
Thankfully, God has given us the blessing of free will and with that the freedom to choose wisely or not so wisely. (150)
However, Weinberger did a philosophical about-face with this comment.
We in our limitedness cannot see if a tragedy was chosen by us in our pre-birth planning or not. (158)
One cannot have completely free will if there is any sort of pre-birth planning. This is not logically or theologically sound. The free will concept interests me because I have a theory that many people often claim they have it without fully developing their thinking about it. During my short seminary career, I got into a heated discussion about free will with a fellow student who claimed she had free will and yet soundly professed a Lutheran faith. She became irritated when I recommended that she read Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will.
Anyway, the best one can muster is compromised will, because everyone is affected in some fashion by their environment and situation. One can make choices on the micro level, but they are too influenced on the macro level to make a truly free choice. In my opinion, free will needs to be explored fully before one can claim that God has bestowed any sort of free will, Weinberger included.
President Obama and the House Republicans
Yesterday, President Obama engaged House Republicans in a lively Q&A session during a retreat in Baltimore. The Huffington Post has a transcript here. Here are some highlights I found interesting.
So all I'm saying is, we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.
Yes, it is hard to deal with people that claim you are the second coming of Lenin.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.
Contrary to Republican belief, the United States is not on a trajectory to become USSA.
And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It's not just on your side, by the way — it's on our side, as well. This is part of what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.
It's hard to work together in a negative environment. President Obama shows how necessary it is for both sides to compromise and work together.
If there's uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn't get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it's going to be hard to get a deal done. That's because that's not how democracy works.
It's hard for anyone to work in an all-or-nothing environment. The dualism will lock up any sort of progress.
But on the specifics, I think both sides can take some blame for a sour climate on Capitol Hill. What I can do maybe to help is to try to bring Republican and Democratic leadership together on a more regular basis with me. That's, I think, a failure on my part, is to try to foster better communications even if there's disagreement. And I will try to see if we can do more of that this year. That's on the sort of the general issue.
Unlike previous Presidents, Mr. Obama sees his own faults and is willing to talk openly about them. Furthermore, he is willing to move forward with what he has learned.
CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: And I left that conversation really feeling your sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation's children, do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know that under current law, that government — the cost of government is due to grow from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy, right about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job.Mr. President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law, and unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored. And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent.Now, Mr. President, I know you believe — and I understand the argument, and I respect the view that the spending is necessary due to the recession; many of us believe, frankly, it's part of the problem, not part of the solution. But I understand and I respect your view. But this is what I don't understand, Mr. President. After that discussion, your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years — surely you don't believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this recession — and propose new entitlement spending and move the cost of government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy.Now, very soon, Mr. President, you're due to submit a new budget. And my question is –THE PRESIDENT: Jeb, I know there's a question in there somewhere, because you're making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with, and I'm having to sit here listening to them. At some point I know you're going to let me answer. All right.CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: That's the question. You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President.THE PRESIDENT: Jeb, with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.
The is a fine example of trying to rise above the rhetoric and sticking to the question at hand. President Obama really did well at this event.
36 Arguments for the Existence of God
For a variety of reasons, I do not usually venture off the nonfiction path. I think the main reason is the ease to which I can find books that interest me. It is much easier for me to walk into a bookstore and go straight for a topic rather than pour through the massive fiction section. I often do not want to devote the time to research fiction authors that write about what interests me. Knowing all of this about me, I maintain an open mind for recommendations. When Jodi had Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s 36 Arguments for the Existence of God sent to me, I did not hesitate to read it. Inside was a wonderful world of philosophy, psychology, religion, atheism, and academia. The book is about Cass Seltzer, a professor of religious psychology and author of the book The Varieties of Religious Illusion. Goldstein shows us Cass’ world through his academic formation with the eccentric genius Jonas Elijah Klapper, his family’s Hasidic Jewish roots, and personal relationships with two women: the extremely mathematical psychologist Lucinda and the wild anthropologist Roz. The book’s climax features Cass, oft-dubbed the atheist with a soul, debating the existence of God with economics professor Felix Fidley. I believe my complete buy-in for this book has to do with the belief that I am somewhat like Cass. Though I am not an atheist, I do not tow the line of any one particular religion and am pretty freewheeling with my spirituality. Cass is not a hard-core atheist of the Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris schools. Instead, as a psychologist influenced by his roots in Hasidism, Cass sees how people can be religious or spiritual and would rather study and talk with them than dismiss them as crazies. This excerpt from the debate nicely shows Seltzer’s worldview. Religious impulses and emotions are varied. There are expansive, life-affirming emotions that can find a natural expression in the context of religion, which is why I can never offer a wholesale condemnation of religion, even though Professor Fidley seems to think I do. But when religion encourages what I can only describe as a moral childishness that blocks the development of true moral thinking, then I do condemn it. When religious tells us that there is nothing more we can say about morality than that we can’t see the reasons for it, but do it if you know what’s good for you, then I do condemn it. We can do better than that. We can become moral grown-ups. And if there were a God, surely he would approve. (323) One of the most interesting qualities about this book is the way Goldstein shows Cass’ relationships with vibrant personalities. A particular relationship to note is the one with Lucinda, his girlfriend during most of the book. Cass and Lucinda’s relationship involves, among other things, how two academic egos relate to one another. This exchange shows how these egos can often clash. “Rational self-interest is always what morality boils down to,” she continued in a reflective tone of voice. “Do you think so?” “Of course. I’ve always figured you must, too.” “Why’s that?” “Well, isn’t that basically the core of Jewish ethics?” “I never thought of it that way.” “The way I heard it, Judaism is the religion of rational actors. My father explained it to me. His grandfather was religious, so he knew all about it. The great rabbis had a saying: ‘If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?’” “And?” “And what?” “That’s only part of it.” “It is?” “The rest of the quote is: ‘And if I’m only for myself, then what am I?’” “Are you sure? That’s not the way I heard it.” “I’m sure.” “Well, that’s a disappointment.” “You don’t mean that.” There’s a pause. “Lucinda?” “I’m kidding, I’m kidding! Give me a little credit for complexity, will you! It was a joke!” But she hadn’t laughed. Again, Lucinda hadn’t laughed. (244) There is so much more that I could write about this book. It is easily the best fiction I have read in over a year, though I do not have much of a data set to pull from in making this claim.
Intellectual Snobbery
This tirade is complements of Steven
Novella. This is the type of thinking I will likely encounter as my energy
healing & holistic health practice evolves. In my opinion, this is not
unlike a fundamentalist Christian arguing against another religion’s legitimacy.
My comments are in red. To be clear, I am skeptical of Homeopathy as well.
However, I am willing to have an open mind, unlike Novella.
My skeptical comrades down under have
been kicking A and taking names. They demonstrate that skeptical activism can
have concrete positive effects. Most recently they issued a complaint to the Therapeutic Goods
Administration (the Australian equivalent of the FDA) about the claims being
made on two homeopathy websites (“Homeopathy Plus!”
and “www.d-n-h.org”).
Specifically the cites claimed that homeopathic immunization (there is no such
thing) (For being a
data-driven scientist, Novella offers no data to back up this claim) was as effective as real immunization for the prevention of
infectious diseases. They report:
Dr Ken Harvey, a lecturer at Latrobe
University School of Public Health, who authored the complaint, objected to
claims on the website that “homeopathic immunisation is effective against
poliomyelitis, chicken pox, meningococcal disease, hepatitis (all types), Japanese
encephalitis, HiB, influenza, measles, pnuemococcal disease, smallpox, typhoid,
cholera, typhus whooping cough, rubella, mumps, diptheria, malaria, tetanus,
yellow fever, dysentery and many other epidemic diseases”.
To support these claims the research of Isaac Golden was
referenced, but the study referenced was in fact negative – without
statistically significant results.
The panel who heard the complaint came back with a favorable
finding:
The findings from The Complaints
Resolution Panel stated that although the complainant cited references for
homeoprophylaxis, they “did not provide complete copies of the papers cited”
and that the material was “misleading”,“unverified”
and “abused the trust or
exploited the lack of knowledge of consumers”.
That last bit could apply to just about all of so-called
“alternative” medicine. (Again, no data
to back this claim up—for being a lover of science and statistic, Novella sure
likes to make claims without evidence.)
The ruling is another hopeful sign that we can turn the tide
against pseudoscience in medicine and the legitimizing of health fraud through
clever marketing. Homeopathy is pure bunk and has no place in a science-based
health care system. But the promoters of dubious health claims have been
successful in distracting the public, regulators, and even some academics with
pleasant sounding but ultimately misleading rhetoric. (Novella knows a thing or two about rhetoric.)
Here is a recent example – a press release about what is
ultimately a worthless study. (Again, no data
to back this up. Where’s the science behind Novella’s claims? It looks like a
lot of rhetoric.)
The team of UCLA and UC San Diego
experts in the fields of CAM, integrative medicine, Western medicine, medical
education and survey development created a novel 30-question survey and sent it
to 126 medical schools throughout the United States. In return, the team
received 1,770 completed surveys from a pool of about 68,000 medical students
nationwide, roughly three percent.
Three percent – that means that the results of this survey are
uninterpretable – worthless. (Rhetoric) This is such a highly self-selective response that it tells
us nothing statistical about the attitudes of medical students toward CAM.
Further, the questions asked in such surveys can be phrased to produce a
positive result – and in this case ambiguity as to what is considered “CAM”
makes the questions themselves almost too vague to be of any use. This study is
so bad that it should not be publishable in the peer-reviewed literature.
However, CAM proponents now have their own journals in which to publish
worthless studies that are only useful for propaganda purposes. (More rhetoric, opinion, and claims without data.) This one will be published in Evidence-based Complementary and
Alternative Medicine.
From the press release:
“Complementary and alternative medicine
is receiving increased attention in light of the global health crisis and the
significant role of traditional medicine in meeting public health needs in
developing countries,” said study author Ryan Abbott, a researcher at the UCLA
Center for East-West Medicine. “Integrating CAM into mainstream health care is
now a global phenomenon, with policy makers at the highest levels endorsing the
importance of a historically marginalized form of health care.”
I disagree with just about every assertion in this statement –
this is the cover, the distraction, the equivalent of “ignore that man behind
the curtain.” The first sentence begs the question as to whether or not CAM in
any way will be helpful to the global health crisis (a crisis created with help from science-based medicine). The World Health Organization recently had to admit that homeopathy, for example, has no
role in the real health crises faced by third world countries. Unscientific
medicine is a sure way to waste resources and worsen the global health crisis (again, created with help by science-based medicine).
Then there is attempt to portray CAM as “traditional” and
“marginalized” – appealing to cultural sensitivity.
Then the press release dives into the core CAM propaganda:
CAM, which includes therapies such as
massage, yoga, herbal medicine and acupuncture, is characterized by a holistic
and highly individualized approach to patient care. It’s emphasis is on
maximizing the body’s inherent healing ability; getting patients involved as
active participants in their own care; addressing the physical, mental and
spiritual attributes of a disease; and preventive care. While interest in these
fields has increased dramatically in the United States in recent years,
information about such therapies has not yet been widely integrated into
medical education.
CAM is not “holistic”. Most CAM modalities take a very narrow view
of health and illness by focusing on the “one cause of all disease” or a
simplistic philosophy-based notion of health. (This is not true. Most CAM modalities recognize the need to
integrate all forms of treatment into the healing process, unlike the
science-based medicine Novella is advocating for in this tirade.) Treating all illness as if it were a deficit in the flow of
life energy does not treat a person as a whole biological organism. (Part of the problem is the failure of many science-based
medical practitioners to see the human being as more than simply a biological
organism. The human being is a biological, psychological, sociological, and
spiritual being. The human being is not just a biological machine.) Most CAM treatment is also not individualized – but rather
applies cookbook style remedies. (This is true only in his limited worldview of CAM.)
The press release also repeats the common canards that CAM is
preventive medicine and patient-centered medicine. These concepts, however,
have their origin in mainstream medicine. (Mainstream medicine did not invent preventative and
patient-centered medicine. He has no data to back this up either. A reading
into the healing practices of many non-Western cultures will reveal Novella’s
failure to see his bias to what he calls mainstream medicine.) It is simply historical revisionism for CAM to claim that
they innovated the notion of prevention. (It is blindness to history and culture to claim this.) It is also simply not true that CAM treatments are truly
preventive of anything. Of course, if you are willing to simply make up claims,
like homeopathy can be used as an effective vaccine, then you can claim to be
preventive.
But scientists and skeptics can resist this trend by refocusing
attention on what really matters – what are the claims, and what is the
evidence. We would also like scientific plausibility restored to its proper
place, but that is a larger battle. (I would like Novella to use scientific plausibility and honest
scholarship to back up his claims. However, he didn’t because he can’t.)
In the meantime, we can at least encourage existing regulatory
agencies to do their job – police fraudulent health claims. This is where
skeptical activism comes in, and has been increasingly successful. The WHO
statements were in response to a complaint by Sense About Science, a UK
skeptical group. The Australian Skeptics have successfully opposed
anti-vaccination campaigns, and now have scored against homeopathy quackery. (Ahh, the descent into name-calling and ad hominem attacks, a
calling card of fundamentalists and people who argue without any data to back
up their claims.)
Our core premise is hard to argue with, and is the premise of much
existing regulation – health claims should be backed by sufficient evidence. In
fact, it is easy to promote this premise when dealing with mainstream medicine
– the claims of physicians and “big pharma”, for example. All we want is for
the same standards of evidence to apply to all claims. CAM is about creating a
double standard – it is the curtain behind which unscientific remedies are
trying to hide.
Almost daily I get e-mails from readers and listeners who are
faced with a situation in which unscientific medicine is being promoted at
their workplace, at their school, in their family, on the web, or elsewhere,
and they want to know what to do. For a long time many skeptic felt as if they
should just keep their head down, lest they be accused of being closed-minded,
culturally insensitive, or even a shill for some evil industry. CAM proponents
have become very aggressive at silencing their critics – as they must if they
are to promote their pseudoscience.
This is where culture comes into play – pseudoscience in medicine
will be tolerated as long as we tolerate it. But if we stand up for science and
reason in medicine whenever and wherever necessary I think most people will
find that most people agree with the basic principles of science-based
medicine, and they too were just keeping their head down because they were
unsure about what was actually being claimed.
So speak up. Don’t be afraid to ask questions and defend science
in medicine. And take advantage of the regulatory agencies that already exist
(in the US that’s the FDA and FTC). Governments will respond if the public
demands that they do their job.
This last part is nothing more than an example of intellectual snobbery;
the idea that one’s intelligence is superior and other ways of knowing are
inferior. Novella is not being helpful in this article. The simple fact is that
healing does not have to exclusively involve science. For many a century, human
beings have been healed without the help of science-based medicine. Our existence
today proves that point. Most CAM practitioners, including me when I begin to
practice, advocate for bring all modalities to the healing table, including
science-based medicine. Most of the tragedies and oppression of history involve
one group invoking their knowledge and ways as superior and then forcing them
onto others. Novella’s worldview falls into this category, which is frightening
because he is a doctor and supposed to be a healer. As a future energy healer
and holistic health practitioner, I take Novella as an example of what not to
do.
Interdisciplinary
The opening of the academic mind
The ultimate problem is this: How do you create a system for
the production of knowledge that is, on the one hand, rigorous and
peer-reviewed and, on the other, committed to aims and obligations beyond its
own survival? The professoriate itself is well aware of the dilemma, Menand
observes, and has enthusiastically promoted what sounds like a solution:
"interdisciplinarity." The hope is that if professors join in
conversation with one another, they'll remember to be interesting to people
outside their building.
This is a rather interesting book review that discusses a
topic that has often interested me. I am in the interdisciplinary camp, and I
believe colleges can do a better job at creating interdisciplinary courses that
link one’s major with other majors. I think this would help to create a person that is a better thinker & more cooperative, something desperately needed in today’s world of act first and think
never. Often during my studies (both in undergraduate and now in graduate
school), I witness poor debating and critical thinking skills brought on by
one-sided thinking. My fellow students often cling to ideas learned in their
major, and when they are pressed for deep thought in other areas of existence, they
break down into panic mode because they were not taught the deep-thinking and
reflection often produced by an exchange of ideas with different-minded people.
This is due in part to the lack of philosophy courses—or any interdisciplinary
courses for that matter—intentionally structured into a major.
It mimics an issue that plagues all of humanity—like-minded
people are self-segregated into boxes and departments and only engage with
different people out of necessity. Conflict often results when groups cling to
their ideas and cannot work together with groups that have different ideas. If
these groups were intellectually formed in an interdisciplinary environment, I
am willing to bet these conflicts would be reduced. I have no data to back that
up, however. It is just a hunch.
QotD: “To teach is to learn twice.” ~Joseph Joubert, Pensées, 1842
If you had to teach something, what would you teach?
I am going to teach people how to help themselves heal, though I’m
not sure I like the word teach, as it can invoke a power relationship that
might hinder the healing process. I will be more like a guide that helps &
empowers rather than instructs. Under the umbrella of energy healing, the
holistic healer I am becoming will help others achieve wellness. Healing in
this manner involves helping a person’s being as a whole. This is my vocation
and it involves my own healing in these realms first before I can heal others.
A new semester of books
Here is my book list for the spring semester. It’s going to be a great semester.
Women and Holistic Health
- Woman as Healer
- For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts’ Advice to Women
- The Truth About the Drug Companies
Spiritual Wellness
- Integrating Spirituality into Treatment
- Spiritual Care: Nursing Theory, Research, and Practice
- Voices of Color: First-Person Accounts of Ethnic Minority Therapists
Movement, Relaxation, and Health
QotD: Nervous Nelly
What makes you nervous? How do you react when you get nervous?
My
failure to live in the present and my choice to worry about the future create
nervousness. Often this situation manifests itself late at night, producing a
sleepless condition because my brain is analyzing the future.
I
have compassion for people that are prisoners to nervousness. I have seen how
living in a constant state of nervousness and worry negatively affects one’s
health and relationships. Thankfully, I have the ability to see this situation
and choose to do something about it. Mindfulness and breathing help me return
to the present, where I can clearly see reality. The causes of the nervousness
and the solutions become apparent. I then make the appropriate choices and
experience peace, clarity, and a return to enjoying life in the present (or a
sound night of sleep).
Helping
others heal themselves is what I am learning to do as a future holistic health
practitioner and energy healer. A focus of my practice will be helping people
learn how they can transform nervousness and worry into something useful and
positive.
QotD: If at first you don’t succeed…
What was the last thing you tried hard at, but failed at anyway?
Acceptance of possible failure can help a person see the necessity of failure as potentially the greatest vehicle for learning.
The many successes I have enjoyed in life have come off lessons I have learned from failures. Many people view failure negatively and are afraid of it. Though failure can be painful, I have learned how beneficial it can be for one’s growth and development. Once I learned this, the fear of failure no longer had a grip on me.
Perhaps the best example of this was my first attempt at graduate school. Seminary was a failure on multiple levels.
• Failure to see that my spirituality and theology were incompatible at a strictly Christian and Lutheran institution
• Failure to be patient and allow the path to manifest itself
• Failure to listen my soul rather than my ego
• Failure to persevere in tough times
The success I am enjoying in my current Master’s program has been fueled by these failures.
