Talk:Faith healing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Faith Healing in the Gospels

One thing I noticed in going through the acts of healing in the Gospel, such as the laying of hands to cure blindness, palsy, etc, is that there may actually a physiological basis to this. In all cases I examined, the acupuncture meridian for the symptomology presented was used, even by Jesus in many cases, as it describes fairly specifically how he touched them. It was not simply "laying of hands". Querying PubMed showed evidence and studies on the use of acupuncture, and acupressure, in treating or relieving symptoms in these cases. It's quite obvious "qi" and the meridian model is fundamentally flawed, but it is a crude approximation of physiological systems that's mostly accurate and reproducable.

The incidents in the gospel are generally more striking, but I don't think that necessarily makes *all* of them beyond the laws of physics, though some of them, such as Jesus's healing of a mother's possessed child over distance seem to be.

They may have been beyond our understanding of things for a long time, but the fact is this: touch can heal. Many of the physiological mechanisms responsible for acupressure/acupuncture have been found but it's not a full understanding.

I'm not saying this makes all the faith healing incidents mention on this page true. Christian faith is based on merit; ie, evidence. It is not blind.

But perhaps while some of the "faith healing" so famously noted in the gospel was of the "miracle" type, perhaps others simply reflected a greater understanding than our own in some areas of human physiology we have only begun to study in recent years.


" Christian faith is based on merit; ie, evidence. It is not blind."

I'd have to disagree, since the accounts in the Bible have been repeatedly demonstrated as unreliable or entirely fabricated by scientists, including archaeologists, biologists, etc. When presented with the overwhelming scientific consensus, most religious people cling to their own ideas despite their merit or lack thereof. To pretend that storied written decades and centuries after the fact with no collaborating evidence or reports supporting they occured are valid in determining anything about the medical/physiological knowledge of the period is to go completely on faith without anything validating the claims. It's like making stories about Atlantis or Big foot. 16:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Fathermithras

"Christian faith is based on merit; ie, evidence. It is not blind." It is not based on evidence. It is, as you say, faith. You could have faith that a tomato is god, that doesn't make it so. I believe that the article is as neutral as possible - you won't be able to please both sides.

This article seems to be NPOV. Why is it tagged? Please remove the tag or post here what you believe needs to be corrected.--81.157.100.112 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Christian faith healing from other types?

I think that 'Christian faith healing' should be a separate topic from secular views. CowboyWisdom 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, since there is so much material, both biblical and related to modern healing in the charismatic movement etc. David L Rattigan 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There should be such an article on Christian divine healing. Good places to start in researching the History of this phenomenon would be Ronald Kydd's book as well the The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements published by Zondervan. The next issue would relate to various theologies of Christian healing. Its a much needed article!--Loudguy 01:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree - there should be a divine healing section. 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey folks can somebody tell me

How to make the link of this same article to it's spanish and other lenguages in the spanish edition I translated but I don't know how to stablish the linguistic or idiomatic links, thanks,for do it.

[edit] Deleted Irrelevant Annecdote

I removed the bit about "A recent article in Time Magazine." This was not verifyable, not cited, and not in the correct section.

[edit] My edit and NPOV

The logic of my edit was 1) The word famous doesn't add anything and is very arguable 2) Saying the person "had the gift of healing"presumes that such a gift exists and so is not NPOV as opposed to stating the person was reported to have the gift which is NPV 3) Regarding Holos- Holos isn't a well known example at all and I don't see what having that sentence there really accomplishes. JoshuaZ 18:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I failed at reading the diff correctly. My apologies. I've undone my change. -- BillWeiss | Talk 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Faithhealers.gif

Image:Faithhealers.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Do statements like "It's a supernatural manifestation that brings healing and deliverance from all kinds of diseases whether organic, functional, or psychological" really belong in an encyclopaedia? I'm sure the proponents of "faith healing" believe that statement and it is perfectly reasonable to mention that. However it would be absurd to consider neutrality nothing more than the average view of the interested parties. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that many people believe in all sorts of ideas that are demonstrably false or not disprovable. To state _demonstrable fallacies_ or statements that are not disprovable as fact in an encyclopaedia purely because some people believe them is clearly absurd.

I have accordingly modified the sentence in question to "It is _purportedly_ a supernatural manifestation that brings healing and deliverance from all kinds of diseases whether organic, functional, or psychological."

41.241.44.16 09:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a number of lines in the criticism section that seemed to serve no other purpose than to deflect criticism from the New Thought movement. The lines feel like they're pushing an agenda: "It's ok to have a go at christian religious healers - but not new thought ones." I will make some small changes to the paragraphs to make the criticisms sound less "all-encompassing". As not every criticism is true in every instance across different belief systems anyway.Petemyers (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Thought (mental healing)

Maybe this should have its own artical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.67.165 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

Added cleanup template. Lots of grammatical and agreement errors. Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.119.127 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I started to clean up, not just grammar but formatting and POV, but I think I give up, because the structure is so terrible. People seem to have been adding their favorite sections without any regard at all for the overall Table of Contents. An "In the United States" here, a "Theology" there... a bit about how New Thought Healing differs from faith healing in Christian Science, before Christian Science itself is introduced... The topic is very well-deserving of an article, but this article is quite incoherent. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New Thought to be separated from Chistian?

I belive Spiritual Mind Treatment should have it own artical. It fits here to a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the grammar in the New Thought section and added one reference. I have also moved the entire Christian section (formerly titled "Backhround") under "Belief Systems", with sub-sub-heads for denominational variations.
I also agree with JGG59 that Spiritual Mind Treatment should get its own artcle, retaining the use of the word here too, of course.
cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 00:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I did a lot of cleaning up. Unless someone can cite the material, I'll eliminate most of the rest of the uncited parts of the article (in a few days), and just leave the headings. The article needs a new lead, but before I know if someone is going to cite the material, there is no reason to write it. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Took out the rest of the the uncited material, except that which another user is edit warring to keep in. Seems to be a COI problem there. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've continued doing a lot of cleaning up in this article, it seems riddled with POV: christian; new age; and skeptic... and also includes nonsense sentences like: "In both cases the patient experiences a real reduction in perceived symptomatology, though in neither case has anything miraculous or inexplicable occurred." Symptomatology is the study of symptoms, I will look through the article and try and clean up further errors like this.Petemyers (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leroy Jenkins

Yes, it's the name of a World of Warcraft meme. He was also a faith healer. A google search shows several hits about him. While I know that's not a proper reference, I'm fairly sure that Randi's book The Faith Healers mentions him. If I can find my copy, I'll add a reference.

Ok, it's better than nothing: Amazon.com: The Faith Healers lists "Leroy Jenkins" as a key capitalized phrase. The book came out before the WoW thing. -- BillWeiss | Talk 03:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Having lived in South Carolina at the time, I can attest that the LeRoy Jenkins scandal saturated the local news media for months. Now, three decades later, there unfortunately seems to be very little information on this subject available online, other than perhaps informal bulletin board discussions posted by people who presumably lived during that era.

If a historical news event is not "sufficiently" sourced -- I've noticed that online content containing news events that occurred prior to about 1985-1990 tends to be rare -- does that mean that the information needs to be deleted (even if possibly thousands or millions of television viewers who personally witnessed the story unfold on the evening news can vouch for it's accuracy)? I would hope not.

One source that I found is a copy of a 1980 Penthouse magazine article -- presumably still under copyright protection until the copyright term (if not renewed) would be set to expire on 31December2008.

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/pent1.html

I did not post this link in the main article because I don't know what is Wikipedia's policy of allowing linking to seemingly-bootleg webpages of old magazine and newspaper articles. Since I assume that decades-old news stories have near-zero commercial value, I think it's unlikely that the publisher would be very upset if someone scanned and OCR'd an ancient and obscure news article of theirs and posted it online. (I believe that the vast majority of copyrighted material is not renewed for a second term.) Although linking to web pages with copyright-infringing material may be illegal, it's often difficult to know the exact copyright status of many small items.

Perhaps fortunately in this case, a lot of men have a strange habit of keeping old issues of Playboy and Penthouse magazines forever (often tucked away in remote areas of their house where their wives are unlikely to ever look) so any current-events articles appearing in girlie mags could be expected more likely to survive and later re-emerge than something printed in a small-town newspaper.

I reversed "citation cop" Martinphi's edits. I don't mind seeing [citation needed] tags, but I think it's inappropriate to delete half the article -- claiming lack of references. Many Wikipedia articles were written before numbered footnotes were supported or came into common use, and items often were sourced exclusively via the external links instead of numbered footnotes - and these important reference links often tend to vanish through multiple edits. Please, let's add references instead, and try to only delete things that are categorically untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.99.202 (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that Martinphi is working against the best interrsts of Wikipedia by deleting low-traffic material simply because it was written before wiki standards changed. I suggest that Martinphi spend time doing some research rather than taking down previously written work. cat Catherineyronwode 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'm fine leaving it up a while. But it does need to be cited, and I think especially in articles on subjects such as this, we need very firm citation. It's best to add material gradually, with citation. So I'll leave it up for a week or two, and if no one decides it's worth the work, I'll come back and delete it again. I dunno, maybe the rules on citation changed in the past. But we do have a citation requirement now, and articles -especially articles like this- should be re-done if necessary to comply with it:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.

That's from WP:V, emphasis added. So anyway, I'll give it a little while, and see what evolves. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, i noticed that you took out antagonistic paragraphs that had remained unverified and uncited for one month and two months, respectively. This seems fair to me. Rather than lose them, i have kept them with the article, but "commented out" (invisible except to editors) so that they can be restored if anyone does care to find a verifiable reference source for these statements. I noticed that one of the critical comments had then been moved (duplicated) from the criticism section to the lead paragraph by the editor ScienceApologist; this is not proper editing for any article. Imagine a racist being allowed to add hate-speech in the lead paragraph of an article describing people whose skin colour he disliked, or a Luddite being allowed to post a rant about automobiles being evil in the lead paragraph of an article on cars. This article already has a "Critical opposition" section, and that is sufficient. It is up to those who are critics to write that section in a verifiable and well-sourced manner. They cannot come along and expect to grafitti-tag the lead section with oppositional claims. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they can. The lead reflects the article. And all notable points of view should be in the article. So, if it's notable enough for a section in the article, it's notable enough for the lead. But it shouldn't be just copied over. BTW- we aren't interested in anyone's feelings. We just repeat what the sources say, in encyclopedic language. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The lead reflects the article and the article is about a religious topic. Articles on religion and belief are not to be slagged by religion-haters in the lead. That dos NOT "reflect the article" -- it merely allows haters to steal the lead. I, for one, will not put up with it. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the article is about. The lead has what the article has. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "The lead is what the article has" has little meaning at Wikipedia, where all is flux and change. Earlier you wrote,, "The lead reflects the article." That makes a lot more sense to me, because, since the article is about a religious topic, the lead should reflect that religious topic. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Psychic Surgery links

I have removed all links on the page that led to the article on psychic surgery (and vice versa on the psychic surgey page). The two topics are not related. Psychic surgery is a form of medical fraud that employs sleight of hand to visually convince a patient that a "surgery" has taken place. Faith healing is a religious experience on the part of the patient that does not employ sleight of hand.

The attempt to force psychic surgery to be a subset of faith healing (as was claimed prior to my removal of the link) is an obvious POV-pushing ploy on the part of anti-religious editors who regularly patrol any pages that deal with spirituality and festoon them with Skeptical Inquirer, forteana, Skeptic's Dictionary, James Randi, and other in-text links and see-also tags.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a helpful point Catherine, that's why I've added the section on theological skepticism, as it seems there is a tendency to create a false antithesis in topics like this between the more fantastical and the rational. There are religious people, who don't necessarily buy into the extraordinary, and so for neutrality it's important to reflect that. I know there are some who would like to think that all religious people believe anything that sounds unusual or outlandish.Petemyers (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Skepticism will have to be placed in the article"

As long as there are people practicing faith healing who promote the idea that there are fundamentally observable phenomena unexplained by the scientific method then skepticism will have to be placed in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism already has found a place in the article, in the section titled "Critical opposiition." There are also several unsourced claims in that section which have been commented out until such time as you or someone who feels strongly about the subject will do the work of finding a source that verifies them. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the Rational Skepticism tag from this page. The article is not about Rational Skeptisicim, and in fact, Rational Skepticism is opposed to all that this article describes. Tagging this page for inclusion under Rational Skepticism is akin to tagging The Peace and Freedom Party for inclusion under Libertarianism or tagging the Pacificm article for inclusion under Military History.
It's there because they have an interest in it. I put it back. It's not up to you to decide this. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi - it's "not up to you to decide this" either. You can't just assert that they have an interest in it. When I read your comment I had no idea why you made that assertion, and therefore whether it was valid or not. For reference on this, the Rational Skepticism Project states this as part of their project aims: "Dedicated to creating and adding to articles related to science and philosophy, while checking the POV currently present in various Wikipedia articles dealing with such topics as psychics, magick, "alternative" medicines, etc.", and in their goals, they explicitly list adding to criticism sections. So I do think you're right that they have an interest in this article, from their stated goals. But please do remember to cite sources even in talk pages, for the sake of other users :)Petemyers (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are also things in this criticism section that need to be sorted out. For example, the placebo effect is not a logical criticism, it is an alternative scientific explanation of faith healing. post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical criticism - because it is suggesting that people feeling better are coincident with the experience of going to the faith healer - and there is no logical consequence from the latter to the former. So the two issues do belong in the criticism section, but not together. The current paragraph is misleading. Petemyers (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "Alternative explanations", which seems to deal with my criticism in the paragraph above.Petemyers (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Thought Movement Reference

I would like to move the information about solo practice to this section, but feel that my familiarity with the subject is insufficient to provide a citation. Rather than fact-tag my own edit, I am proposing that the following sentence, "Spiritual mind treatment connects thoughts and state of mind to physical well being, and may be performed solo or with the aid of a practitioner," be placed in the New Thought subsection between the first and second sentences (as of this writing). Eldereft (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention; i emphatically do not wish to see the information moved and i have added a reference that supports it in its present place, namely the 1902 book "Experiences in Self-Healing" by the famed New Thought author, editor, and publisher Elizabeth Towne, which is currently in print. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. I have duplicated the reference into the New Thought subsection, as practices distinguishing its methods from other forms of faith healing should certainly be present in its description.
I understand the point that not all faith healers are necessarily the same, and appreciate the current wording which acknowledges that lack of a recipient for "gratitude, confidence and money" obviates only one of the criticisms levied at faith healing in general. However, the sentence under Criticism excepting New Thought faith healing from abuse by charlatans breaks the flow of the section. Moving it after the Randi sentences allows for a complete presentation of the huckster case. Such language might also be appropriate after the public health section if there are other exceptional rebuttals to be made. Eldereft (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Eldereft, for correcting my typos. I am visually impaired and wiki has no spell checker, so i often cannot see the typos until i see the finished page (that's why so many of my edits have the comment "typo patrol). In this case, i was editin and someone came into my office, si i just hit "submit" and let it fly, typos and all. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Section Added to Criticism of Faith Healing, some edits and suggestions

There are a number of different areas of criticism of faith healing and faith healing movements that the current article does not address. I added one... the theological criticism of Christian faith healers by other Christians.Petemyers (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Another area of criticism would include the lack of integrity exhibited by some faith healers has put them in bad standing with the Christian church, and therefore raised skepticism (e.g. Leroy Jenkins), and this could *possibly* include information about *alleged* lack of integrity exhibited by some faith healers, for example Benny Hinn... it's worth pointing out, that allegations against him were only *alleged*, and they haven't been proven - however - the fact that the controversy existed has been a cause for disenchantment among some about faith healing, and so might reasonably find a place in this article. Such an edit would require very careful wording so as to avoid criticism of slander.Petemyers (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This line from the section on criticism is unreferenced: "This objection to faith healing is not applicable to the way the method is used in Spiritualism or the New Thought Movement, for both of those religions encourage patients to combine conventional medicine with faith healing." So I will comment it out until we find one. Especially as, I have some Spiritualist friends who have forgone medical treatment on the basis of their beliefs, and so it doesn't even stand up anecdotally. If someone finds a reference to cite - then stick it back in!Petemyers (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topics not covered, that could be legitimately in this article

Islamic faith healing; Reiki/Buddhist faith healing; Jewish faith healing; Hindu faith healingPetemyers (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the list...
1. the distinction between faith healing and, say, simply advocating that a patient maintain a positive attitude. I wouldn't, but some might argue that the fact that there is such a close connection (apparently) between a positive outlook and a healthy immune system shows evidence of a "spiritual" connection, built-in. That needn't imply the existence of a god, but it does become something of a challenge to explain where faith healing would be distinct from a doctor telling a patient that worrying about symptoms will only make them worse.

2. maybe some reference to the connection between faith healing and "televangelists"? Some fairly high-profile (for better or worse) people on TV include segments where they pray for various people, and even read prayers for healing sent in by others. Heck, some of these people have run for president; whether Pat Robertson's lack of political success is poor evidence of the power of prayer or not, I leave to others to decide. But he and others to engage in what could legitimately be called attempts to marshall spiritual forces for medical purposes.

C d h (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Science

I have reverted non-encyclopedic additions to this section a number of times over the last month or two. I would like to make it clear that this is not due to some perceived unassailably high quality of this section - far from it - but merely an insistence that any additions actually add content. Semantically void promotionalism (of a denomination or a website) and in-sect jargon are not progress towards a better article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to remove the section altogether, at least until someone can draw up a NPOV draft before re-inserting it. The wording is the the main issue, with improper nouns such as "Him" being capitalized upon. If Christian Science is to be included in the article, then it needs to be a clear, accurate, referenced definition stating what Christian Science is, and not express any opinions or viewpoints straying from the referenced material, nor any subtle POV injections like the aforementioned weasel wording. 74.242.121.18 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That would certainly be nice. It is mildly embarrassing to have this article lacking one of the most well-established and well known denominations with faith healing as a central tenet. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The section was removed under pretense of Wiki policy. Reverting edits on the basis of personal opinion about the subject itself is POV. 65.6.50.44 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)