Why are 4e gods of Healing so weak?

98 posts / 0 new
Last post
How do I know they're weak you ask? Easy. They rely on someones own healing ability to heal.

In otherwords, healing surges. The cleric gets some powers to heal by triggering someones healing surge. Which means they can't heal someone if he's already run out of healing surges for the day.

That's right. The mortal representative of a divine being whos focus is the health of mortals, cannot use his patrons divine power to work miraculous cures any more.

Colour me confused.
Why do they even bother?

Just let them rest a few hours and they'll be fine. No miracles required.

But seriously I have no problems with this aspect. I had actually considered this as a house rule long before 4e.

Fantasy and medical drama is filled with the concept of healing coming from the person being healed and all the magic/medicine in the world can't help them if they give up.
Okay here's one thing, the healing as it were in 4e is focused more on the middle of combat. In fact, there may be a ritual, from what I gather rituals are to be out of combat spells, may have such a spell casting that can heal followers.

Now, I've said this in the healing surges thread, and until I hear more, this is how I'll treat it. The heroes (player characters with a class from the PHB) are special. I'm not talking short bus special, though that may be a case by case comparison, but that they have something in them to make them different from the average person in the world. They can survive more, have more abilites, and such, the average commoner may need a whole bunch more in the way of healing than an adventurer. When it comes to it, create food & water, or cure disease isn't really what most think of combat spells.
Fantasy and medical drama is filled with the concept of healing coming from the person being healed and all the magic/medicine in the world can't help them if they give up.

Really? I have never read any fantasy stories that had this. Can you giveme some examples?

And keep in mind that the cleric is channeling the power of a GOD.
I can understand if an arcane caster had to rely on his targets own healing, but the divine incarnationof healing itself, can't force someone healed?

How about raising someone fromthe dead? Surely it doesn't require people to have some kind of Ressurection Surge for this to work?
Really? I have never read any fantasy stories that had this. Can you giveme some examples?

Amidala died because she gave up the will to live even though she had super futuristic healing and Obi Wan's jedi healing powers available.

In the real world, visit the cancer ward of a hospital. Once a patient gives up the will to keep fighting, they do not last long.
Really? I have never read any fantasy stories that had this. Can you giveme some examples?

I hate this sort of question. So hard to think of specific examples. But it's a fair question.

Servant/Daughter/Mistress of the Empire, by Raymond E. Feist and Jenny Werst.

Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan

I can try to come up with more if you want, but I'm a little busy at the moment so I'll leave that list at two for the moment.

And keep in mind that the cleric is channeling the power of a GOD.

You emphasised the wrong part... "And keep in mind that the cleric is CHANNELING the power of a god."

No one is trying to pretend that a cleric is a god in some sort of holy trinity fashion. The cleric is allocated a few crumbs of power from the gods' supply, they are not a divine power themselves.

I can understand if an arcane caster had to rely on his targets own healing, but the divine incarnation of healing itself, can't force someone healed?

4e Deities and demigods is not yet released, but for now we can assume that the power of gods outstrips those of their worshippers.

How about raising someone fromthe dead? Surely it doesn't require people to have some kind of Ressurection Surge for this to work?

I don't pretend to know about this new strangeness that is 4e but...

3.x Level loss?
2.x Ressurection survival?
Amidala died because she gave up the will to live even though she had super futuristic healing and Obi Wan's jedi healing powers available.

And that was completely stupid. We've coined the phrase in our group. "No one ever died of a broken heart except for Padme." :D
Amidala died because she ... ran out of plot ... even though she had super futuristic healing and Obi Wan's jedi healing powers available.

Fixed ;)
Fixed ;)

I that's why I used Plot Points. When they run out, the author ran out of reasons for you to be alive. Clerics just whisper excuses for you to not hit the grave.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Keep in mind that we've only seen a subset of 1st-level cleric prayers. Who knows what they're capable of later?

Also, there's a paladin prayer (Renewing Smite) that heals without using healing surges.

The Greendale Campaign

 

I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the winds of change sweep the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.

Hmm Never read servant etcof the Empire. I'll have to try and find them.

I've read Wheel of Time (or as much as I can handle anyway) and I don't remember any clerical healing in it to begin with, but it's been ages so I could have forgotten.

Yes, a cleric has nowhere near the power of an actual god but, whats the point of miraculous healing if it isn't , well, miraculous?

Yes, Amidala dying because Anakin was a wanker was stupid. In fact the majority of Eps 1 thru 3 were so stupid so I tend to blank them from my mind.

And don't talk about real life healing because , as far as I know, there have been no scientifically proven effective faith healers in modern times.

As for 3ed level loss, It didn't stop you from being ressurected. It just meant that the process of coming back was extremely strenous and if the person doing it was high enough, you didn't suffer the level loss anyway. (True Ressurection) Same goes for 2ed Sys Shock roll.
How do I know they're weak you ask? Easy. They rely on someones own healing ability to heal.

In otherwords, healing surges. The cleric gets some powers to heal by triggering someones healing surge. Which means they can't heal someone if he's already run out of healing surges for the day.

That's right. The mortal representative of a divine being whos focus is the health of mortals, cannot use his patrons divine power to work miraculous cures any more.

Colour me confused.

Healing surges only limit the number of times a character can be healed by abilities which use healing surges [often fast abilities which focus on combat] they do not limit the amount a character may be healed over all.
There are and will be spells and abilities which heal without requiring healing surges, and there's alwase the heal skill.
Another of the problems when one tries to look at 4e through 3.5 lenses

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

Hmm Never read servant etcof the Empire. I'll have to try and find them.

I've read Wheel of Time (or as much as I can handle anyway) and I don't remember any clerical healing in it to begin with, but it's been ages so I could have forgotten.

Yes, a cleric has nowhere near the power of an actual god but, whats the point of miraculous healing if it isn't , well, miraculous?

It is miraculous.

Generally, miraculous healing is a Ritual. Go check out an Exorcism sometime or an actual "healing" ritual. It takes time.

Healing surges are used in combat. It's an entirely different timeframe. That's not a ritual, that's the Cleric muttering something to his god and hoping that their god can inspire their friends to further feats of bravery and daring. The actual healing can come afterward.

Also, HP rarely represents serious physical damage, it's normally exhaustion, 'plot armor', luck, daring, and precision more than anything else.
Another way to look at healing surges is this:

You can take a certain amount of abuse in a given day by yourself. The cleric can speed up your access to said healing. Once you've run out of surges (assuming no healing rituals) you are at your body's physical limits and will die without sufficient rest.

Assuming the rules don't have injuries that last beyond a 6 hour rest, I'm guessing a fair number of folks will come up with some.

It's like critical hits. Since the dawn of time, they simply boosted damage. People began creating critical hit charts for more varied effects right away. I can see something similar happening for 4E assuming it's not in a part of the system we haven't seen.

Cheers
Hmmm if there is actual healing magic as rituals, that makes more sense then.


Cool.
Thanks for all the replies guys.
Also it should be noted that some healing will take away the Clerics/Paladins Healing Surges instead of the one he is healing.

I also view it as something that pushes the limit of what the person is capable of dealing with. The physical stresses put on the body through this forced, supernatural healing can only go so far till the body cannot take anymore.

Now if the Cleric/Paladin wishes to he can cause most of this supernatural energy to channel through him into the person, so he the Cleric receives the stresses of the magic instead.

The fact too that healing spells allow for you to use more healing surges in-combat beyond the one Second Wind. Shows it is already pushing past the normal amount a person can take.

Plus in my D&D well... It is almost preferable to heal naturally, since forced supernatural healing isn't so nice. What with bones being forced back together and fused, skin and muscle twisting and warping to knit themselves back into a solid whole, etc.
And don't talk about real life healing because , as far as I know, there have been no scientifically proven effective faith healers in modern times.

Actually, The Duke medical center (a non sectarian university), conducted a double blind placebo controlled study on remote prayer. 1000 heart patients were split into 2 groups, half were prayed for by volunteers half weren’t, the patients that were prayed for had 11% less heart attacks and strokes, and far less complications.

I know this sounds crazy, but dozens of studies demonstrate similar results.

The way I see it, DnD clerics channel some of the goodwill their faithful direct to their god and use it to perform acts of faith. Not miracles. A Miracle occurs when there is direct divine intervention by a supernatural being.

In the interest of full disclosure I should note:
- I am not religious.
- I do read scientific journals on a weekly basis.
- There are studies who oppose the findings of remote prayer.

Reference:
British Medical Journal on the effects of remote prayer
And that was completely stupid. We've coined the phrase in our group. "No one ever died of a broken heart except for Padme." :D

Well:
Study Suggests You Can Die of a Broken Heart
It has been proven multiple times that people can indeed die from a broken heart...

Ps: I would provide more references if I wasn't tired of teaching people things they aught to know...
Well:
Study Suggests You Can Die of a Broken Heart
It has been proven multiple times that people can indeed die from a broken heart...

Ps: I would provide more references if I wasn't tired of teaching people things they aught to know...

Well...I will politely call BS on that for a few reasons. A) Padme dying of a broken heart is so insipidly stupid that every time I hear about it I die a little inside. B) You're link is broken. C) Depression that is severe enough can cause a person to stop eating and thusly die, but it's rare enough to not really be worth mentioning. If this is what you're referring to then I can see where you're coming from but it's not really "A broken heart" that's doing it and even if that seems like a semantic argument let me just add that Padme didn't just waste away. She fell into a sad-induced death coma and just died with a full medical staff on attention. There are no words to describe how idiotic that is so I will make one up: Lametarded.

Finally to Sooperspook. In fact there is a ton of evidence as to the power of faith to heal. So much in fact that I, being a complete atheist, am telling you in complete truth that it definitely happens. The thing to remember is that the mind is an incredible thing, a truly incredible thing capable of performing feats that we can only barely comprehend. It's also important to remember that proof of a -thing- based off of an idea does not prove that idea: it only proves that -thing-.

To state that a little clearer look at this:
1) Buddhists Monks can survive in sub zero temperatures when covered in blankets wetted with -ice water-. They say they channel the power of their spirits to warm them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMRYm0xLiw
2) Every year bus loads of elderly head up to a church in Quebec. There they undergo a massive faith healing session that has been recorded on camera and in papers over and over again. The elderly often walk in on crutches or occasionally go in on wheelchairs and every year some of them just walk out. There are wheelchairs and crutches hung up all over the walls that people leave there and traditional medical science isn't really sure how this occurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupr%C3%A9
3) Chi Healing has a long history of aiding Chinese soldiers recovery's from injury and providing pain relief to chronic arthritis sufferers even today.

So does this mean that since these three things -are- real, and -do- occur, that all of the dieties in the Buddhist faith, a Christian God, and all of the spirits inherent in the Taoist religion are real? That there's just a boatload of dieties and demigods hanging around somewhere together arguing about who's religion is gonna win in the end? No, of course not. It just means that there are some things that occur which modern science does not at this moment understand. Hell scientists don't even know how -electricity- works really. They'll tell you they do but the fact that electrical charge increases when run through a coil is the basis of all modern electrical functionality and it is a PHENOMENON. That's a fancy name for "Who knows how". So electricity is'nt magic, but it's real. Faith healing isn't magic, but it's real. And all of the new Star Wars movies blow so hard it hurts the soul to think on.

Now everyone have a great day, you beautiful and unique snowflakes you.
Well...I will politely call BS on that for a few reasons. A) Padme dying of a broken heart is so insipidly stupid that every time I hear about it I die a little inside.

Is it stupid because you say it is? If a subjective accusation (which ignores documented science) is all it takes for something to be insipidly stupid I call shotgun on everyone...

B) You're link is broken.

I Fixed the link

C) Depression that is severe enough can cause a person to stop eating and thusly die, but it's rare enough to not really be worth mentioning. If this is what you're referring to then I can see where you're coming from

That is not what the article is referring to, I suggest you read it...
ps: I would also suggest you google it to see how rare it actually is.

but it's not really "A broken heart" that's doing it and even if that seems like a semantic argument let me just add that Padme didn't just waste away.

There is no semantic argument because that's not what the article is referring to.

At this point reasons A B and C have been rebuked, but please keep reading. (we're going to start agreeing and then you're going to learn something)

In fact there is a ton of evidence as to the power of faith to heal. So much in fact that I, being a complete atheist, am telling you in complete truth that it definitely happens. The thing to remember is that the mind is an incredible thing, a truly incredible thing capable of performing feats that we can only barely comprehend.

I know and I agree.

So does this mean that since these three things -are- real, and -do- occur, that all of the dieties in the Buddhist faith, a Christian God, and all of the spirits inherent in the Taoist religion are real?

No one has suggested that they were real.

And all of the new Star Wars movies blow so hard it hurts the soul to think on.

I agree, but Padme's death isn't why they suck.

All this to say that in order for a cleric to perform healing on someone that subject must be willing to live. Not only does this seem fair, it also makes scientific sense. see my references 1, 2 or 3 Or your youtube video (very cool btw)(If the Buddhist monk doesn't try to control his body, he will die)
(If I'm not mistaken we agree on this much)

Most people recover from broken hearts, but Padme was in love with a Jedi and knowing that the love of her life destroyed the republic was probably too much to bear.

Now everyone have a great day, you beautiful and unique snowflakes you.

Thanks, I would also wish you a great day, but it's night here, and the snows melted..

more references proving that you can die of a 'broken heart':

Can a person die from a broken heart?
(where it is explained that 'broken hearts' can mimic heart attacks and on occasion be fatal)
Broken Heart Syndrome Is Real
(where it is explained that 'broken hearts' can stun the heart and produce classic heart attack-like symptoms)

PS: I don't mind people calling BS, as long as they are willing to look at facts and correct their positions upon learning something new.
Hmm Never read servant etcof the Empire. I'll have to try and find them.

I've read Wheel of Time (or as much as I can handle anyway) and I don't remember any clerical healing in it to begin with, but it's been ages so I could have forgotten.

Yes, a cleric has nowhere near the power of an actual god but, whats the point of miraculous healing if it isn't , well, miraculous?

Yes, Amidala dying because Anakin was a wanker was stupid. In fact the majority of Eps 1 thru 3 were so stupid so I tend to blank them from my mind.

And don't talk about real life healing because , as far as I know, there have been no scientifically proven effective faith healers in modern times.

As for 3ed level loss, It didn't stop you from being ressurected. It just meant that the process of coming back was extremely strenous and if the person doing it was high enough, you didn't suffer the level loss anyway. (True Ressurection) Same goes for 2ed Sys Shock roll.

Healing in the Wheel of Time is a magical power that the Aes Sedai use to draw upon the bodies own power to heal it's injuries. It is a strenuous process for both parties I believe.

As for a D&D Clerics healing abilities, you forget healing rituals, things like cure poison/disease, restoration, remove curse, turn water into wine, you know...miracles.

PS: I don't mind people calling BS, as long as they are willing to look at facts and correct their positions upon learning something new.

Hmmm, lots of interesting material there. I have certainly learned something new from all of that and for that I thank you. However I stolidly maintain the fact that the Padme example being presented is still total BS (for, among other reasons; the full medical staff present, the fact that she was in her early 20's, the fact that she just gave birth to healthy twins after only 6 months of being pregnant [Note that that means the children are approximately 12 weeks early], and that she wasn't described as having a fatal heart attack but instead that she simply "lost the will to live" and then plopped dead) but I retract my initial call of BS on your entire premise because as you succinctly showed it apparently can occur. I apologize, and well done.
Hmmm, lots of interesting material there. I have certainly learned something new from all of that and for that I thank you. However I stolidly maintain the fact that the Padme example being presented is still total BS (for, among other reasons; the full medical staff present, the fact that she was in her early 20's, the fact that she just gave birth to healthy twins after only 6 months of being pregnant [Note that that means the children are approximately 12 weeks early], and that she wasn't described as having a fatal heart attack but instead that she simply "lost the will to live" and then plopped dead) but I retract my initial call of BS on your entire premise because as you succinctly showed it apparently can occur. I apologize, and well done.

can I just jump in here and add to that BS call, aa DROID (you know a cold machine with little or no emotions...) said she lost the will to live... REALLY, howabout you get back in there and do your job... 2nd point...she has nothing to live for...LIKE HER NEW BORN TWINS...

Sorry I had to get that off my chest

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I think the most important point is that there are no omnipotent, omnipresent gods any more. They are more like the beings from the Swords of Haven trilogy (named Hawk and Fisher, Winner Takes all, and The God Killer) by Simon R. Green. The Beings worshipped as gods are merely powerful, but not invincible or unbeatable.
How do I know they're weak you ask? Easy. They rely on someones own healing ability to heal.

In otherwords, healing surges. The cleric gets some powers to heal by triggering someones healing surge. Which means they can't heal someone if he's already run out of healing surges for the day.

That's right. The mortal representative of a divine being whos focus is the health of mortals, cannot use his patrons divine power to work miraculous cures any more.

Colour me confused.

Perhaps that's not what clerics are about in 4e. Perhaps 4e is taking the approach that gods are hands-off and it's the cleric's faith rather than divine interaction that powers the cleric abilities. Maybe it's because HP loss does not automatically indicate that physical damage has been dealt.

Or, maybe we simply don't have all the information because the rules aren't out yet and can't make this kind of sweeping generalization with any degree of accuracy.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Or like just in general many other regular, old mythological gods.
Thank you deanruel for retracting the BS call on my medical premise.

Even though I don’t think Padme’s death has anything to do with the new Star Wars episodes reason for sucking. I do agree that Padme’s death was a little far fetched (but not beyond belief). As mentioned she was clearly physically healthy. Other then delivering 12 weeks early which would have lead to sever blood loss (which I assume the droids could have dealt with).

However IMHO I do believe that knowing that the only man you had ever loved had almost single handedly destroyed the republic (and thus ruined the galaxy), killed dozens of Jedi (pure good) children and then tried to kill you, would probably be considered a traumatic heartbreak. And I have no problem believing that such a severe trauma could lead to ones death (even more so when considering that Padme is probably force sensitive and thus heavily influenced by her emotions).

can I just jump in here and add to that BS call, aa DROID (you know a cold machine with little or no emotions...) said she lost the will to live... REALLY, howabout you get back in there and do your job... 2nd point...she has nothing to live for...LIKE HER NEW BORN TWINS...

Feel free to question whether Padme’s heartbreak would be big enough to actually kill her. But lets do medical science a favor and not question whether heartbreaks can lead to death (which was the source of the debate). Assuming your beef is with the death scene as a whole I’ll try to address the two issues you brought up:

1)It is weird that a droid points out her ‘lack of will’. But how hard is to believe that the ‘will to live’ can be measured through enzymes, brain waves and neurological impulses?

2)The twins could give her good reason to live, but looking at them and being reminded that they are the fruit of the most unholy man ever to ruin the galaxy would probably be too much for her to bear (same way that **** victims often abandon their children to foster care).
(We’re getting off topic so I’ll stop there).

The key in my opinion is that both these answers are possible (not necessarily probable), but that high drama, basic science and traumatic circumstances provide enough plausible deniability’ for George Lucas to get away with it. (Don’t ask me to defend the rest of the movies, because I hate them too)

PS: Welcome to the ring, but we should probably move this to a saga forum…
can I just jump in here and add to that BS call, aa DROID (you know a cold machine with little or no emotions...) said she lost the will to live... REALLY, howabout you get back in there and do your job... 2nd point...she has nothing to live for...LIKE HER NEW BORN TWINS...

Sorry I had to get that off my chest

Star Wars isn't a Science Fiction series, it's a Fantasy series dressed up in Sci-Fi stuff.

The Droid represents the "Professional", the spirit-healer, the shaman, the warrior, someone with credibility in the story to pronounce something so that others would believe it. In this case, it's a medical droid making a statement about her will to live (which, if he's built to emulate a doctor, he would be able to tell; it's been shown time and time again that Droids do express emotions and understand human emotional responses and can make informed observations of them). Overall, not a major character, just there to jump-start catharsis.
Re: All those examples of 'faith magic', sorry but they haven't been proven at all. Many of these 'miracles' can be attributed to a simple placebo effect.
If they had been proven to work, then hospitals should have a faith healer on call for whatever religion a patient believes in.


AS for the monks, I agree that the human body can do incredible things. This does not make them miraculous. Nor does it necessarily indicate the intervention of a higher being.


That said, I am believing Christian and would like to believe in the existence of real life magic.
Re: All those examples of 'faith magic', sorry but they haven't been proven at all. Many of these 'miracles' can be attributed to a simple placebo effect.
If they had been proven to work, then hospitals should have a faith healer on call for whatever religion a patient believes in.

AS for the monks, I agree that the human body can do incredible things. This does not make them miraculous. Nor does it necessarily indicate the intervention of a higher being.

The article links used as reference in previous posts have nothing to do with 'faith magic' (well not magic anyways). Those examples of remote prayer we're simply used to demonstrate one possible interpretation (mine) of how clerics could hypothetically (in DnD) weild healing powers. Regardless of if you follow my interpretation of DnD clerics, remote prayer and it's effects have been proven scientifically. Further more the 'double blind placebo controlled studies' used as reference mean that: a multitude of people were praying for the subjects recovery while the subjects were unaware of the prayers performed for him.

Gosh I wish people actually read references before commenting on them... or at the very least understood the significance of terms like: double blind placebo controlled studies

Ps: No one has suggested that the monks performed a miracle, I suggest you re-read the posts in question.
I did reread the posts and the comment on monks was quite clearly directed at me and was in reference to faith healing. As one example of three that were given.


As for the 'double blind placebo controlled studies' on prayer healing. Why aren't there medical degrees in faith healing? Because, they have not been proven to consistently work. Yes in some studies they seem to work. While in others they just don't. And until they can get consistent results it has not been 'proven'. That is the basis of scientific proof. Consistent results under the same or similar conditions.

There is such a thing as coincidence after all.
The monks example clearly refereed to the fact that it was not proof of divinity and thus not a miracle. No offense, but you've read this one upside down.

As for the 'double blind placebo controlled studies' on prayer healing. Why aren't there medical degrees in faith healing? Because, they have not been proven to consistently work. Yes in some studies they seem to work. While in others they just don't. And until they can get consistent results it has not been 'proven'. That is the basis of scientific proof. Consistent results under the same or similar conditions.

Wow the flagrant fallacies in that argument make my head hurt, but I'll still enlighten you because we all deserve a third chance..

Fallacy of Causality--
The average family has 2.5 children.
The Smiths are a very average family.
Therefore, the Smiths must have 2 or 3 children.

Fallacy of the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.)

In your example: Facts are tought through curriculum, if something is not tought through curriculum it is not a fact.
(Surely you see the problem with your argument now)

p.s.: there are additional logical fallacies in your statement. I unfortunately don't have time to teach you how to build sound arguments.
pps: I would also encourage you to read the definition of the word miracle, you seam to be using it to define things which are not. while you're at it read blind experiment.
Has there been a leak of the deity specific powers other than the one of the sungod in the DDXP premades?

Because it seems like a very, very logical ability to have the deity of healing's feat-powers revolve around healing not connected to surges.
That said, I am believing Christian and would like to believe in the existence of real life magic.

Real magic is psychology.

All instances of faith or magical healing are about changing or creating a 'sacred space' in the mind. All ritual magic since the dawn of recorded history that we're aware of is about three rules; Ritual, Symbol, Change. It's about creating a different mental state, which encourages the brain to function differently.

This is even further compounded by things going on in the world around you (if you're a Jungian believer, like I am). "Magic" is just a controlled process of adjusting your brain to interpret your world differently. This is why "prayer" works; it creates a sacred space in the mind to encourage self-change.

The Monk had nothing to do with faith, per se, and everything to do with traditional sacred thinking, mental conviction, and preperation of the body.
all the hospitals in my area are catholic hospitals, and have faith healers on hand, using prayer as one form of medicine

Thats... totally normal here in chicago.
And don't talk about real life healing because , as far as I know, there have been no scientifically proven effective faith healers in modern times.

Notice the bolded words. By definition they are mutually exclusive.
Further more the 'double blind placebo controlled studies' used as reference mean that: a multitude of people were praying for the subjects recovery while the subjects were unaware of the prayers performed for him.

I will point out however, as you did in your first post. That a mutlitude of other studies have proven that remote faith healing does absolutely nothing at all. Here are two of them-

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000368/frame.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

I think the safest thing to assume with prayer is that since it is based off of religion it will be difficult to test. Not because Religion somehow negates science but because people either Pro-or Against are strongly invested enough in their opinons to make getting properly done, non-biased studies difficult. It seems somewhat sensible as well as even the most objective Researcher would likely find it hard to maintain a nuetral position on "God, Religion, and the meaning of the Universe".

Personally I think the remote prayer thing doesn't work. But It's known for a fact that personal prayer works (sort of). It's a well known and scientifically documented ( http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html ) fact that people with strong religious beliefs, people who pray for recovery, etc all have much higher likeyhoods of recovering from illness and having better health. Like I said the mind is an incredible thing.

AS for the monks, I agree that the human body can do incredible things. This does not make them miraculous. Nor does it necessarily indicate the intervention of a higher being.

Actually the point of most of my post is that despite the fact that these "Incredible things" are supposedly caused by the intervention of higher beings they do not in any way prove those higher being's existences at all. I'm saying that these "Miracles" exist, are well documented, but their existence actually serves as a method to DISPROVE a higher power as opposed to proving it. It's all in the first post.

Note: I enjoy this arguing with having to cite our sources. It makes the debate intelligent, well reasoned, and not just a gaggle of people throwing their opinions on the table and then gesticulating at them wildly. I'm thoroughly appreciating it.
Religion is actually very bad for you; the least religious countries in the world are the most developed and we have the longest average lifespans, whereas Africans and people in South America, more religiously observant countries, have much shorter lifespans. Even in the developed world, Americans have a significantly shorter lifespan than their compatriots in Japan and France.

Many people simply don't understand that prayer doesn't cause recovery because they don't get how such studies work. It can be good as a placebo, but any placebo the patient believes will work is efficacious against pain. Otherwise, though, placebo effect is pretty minimal. Sometimes you'll find stuff like "Prayer heals!" and then you find that really it is caused by higher rates of patient compliance and similar factors, never evidence that prayer is actually good for you. If you didn't pray, and kept your other behavior the same, you'd be just as well if not better off. And many such "findings" are not even statistically significant and are caused by chance; for example, in the above links you see several non statistically-significant links. And, interestingly, Atheists commit fewer crimes, are wealthier, happier, more intelligent, and have a lower divorce rate than people who are religious. Are these linked to irreligiousity? They certainly correlate, but I (and many other atheists) doubt most are caused by it - most likely, it is because intelligent people are more likely to be atheists, and intelligent correlates positively with all of those factors - basically, you'll find a lot of successful atheists, but it isn't because atheism made them successful but rather because the same factors which lead to their success also led them to atheism.

Many studies on people living longer due to religion actually are looking at religious observance, which is somewhat different - this is helpful because interaction with other people makes you live longer, not because of the actual religious observance. Being religious won't help you.

However, I think all of this is dancing perilously close to a violation of the CoC.
The monks example clearly refereed to the fact that it was not proof of divinity and thus not a miracle. No offense, but you've read this one upside down.



Wow the flagrant fallacies in that argument make my head hurt, but I'll still enlighten you because we all deserve a third chance..

Fallacy of Causality--
The average family has 2.5 children.
The Smiths are a very average family.
Therefore, the Smiths must have 2 or 3 children.

Fallacy of the Consequent--draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.)

In your example: Facts are tought through curriculum, if something is not tought through curriculum it is not a fact.
(Surely you see the problem with your argument now)

p.s.: there are additional logical fallacies in your statement. I unfortunately don't have time to teach you how to build sound arguments.
pps: I would also encourage you to read the definition of the word miracle, you seam to be using it to define things which are not. while you're at it read blind experiment.

Hmm The arrogance is strong in this one. Enlighten me oh Great one! Show me your tremendous Wisdom!

If the monk "clearly" reffrenced something then it would be clear. Since it seems to have meant something other than how I read it, it wasn't in fact, clear.

The Fallacies you listed, have nothing to do with what I wrote. Except maybe to support it in the second fallacy. And what are you going on about "facts taught in curriculum.."? What has that got to do with my statement? I didn't say anything about "facts". I stated that the efficiency* of 'faith healing' has not been proven. And it hasn't. For every study that says it works,theres another that says it doesn't (or that it works for reasons other than 'a deity did it').


*this might not be the right word. I'm not so good at english. In spite of this I do know what miracle means thank you. (And blind experiment.) I believe I used it correctly.
Notice the bolded words. By definition they are mutually exclusive.

Quit lieing. Michiru Kaku, one of the most well respected string theorists is a highly religious man, even going so far as to say "god has to exist, hwo else would the laws of physics be so perfect?". Even Charles Darwin, who dedicated his earlier career to disproving creationism, died a faithful man. When a Scientist tests a new theory they take a leap of faith then attempt to prove it right or wrong.