I think people should be careful doing Reiki

[lottieandmia22]

This post assumes a belief in spirituality so I'm not interested in debating that specifically. If you want to please start your own thread.

From what I can see, reiki is channeling occult energy through people's bodies and is therefore potentially risky. It seems to me that new age practitioners will repeatedly say they don't believe in malevolent entities but I think this is naive.

One of my friends told me that his dad was never the same after he became involved with reiki.

And also nearly everyone I've met who has done it was told by the reiki practitioner that they are 'special' have a 'gift' or could easily become a reiki master.

But what when you know it isn't true and is harmful to people? People buy into these cures and treatments that can't help them. People ahve died doing so.
Why is it boring to care about people being cheated and harmed?

Science ...that same science that gives us telephones & the internet...has proven that these woo experiences do not happen and cannot happen.

Examples of human beings lying, being deluded or mistaken = millions a day. Every day. Since human beings evolved.

Examples of channelled energy zapping between humans to cure disease (contrary to all physical laws) = 0.

"Oh but wait.....we didn't understand nuclear energy before it was discovered". Well, it was discovered and we are no longer in a world that has to ascribe supernatural explanations to things we don't understand.

Here's another statistic:

Solved mysteries that had naturalistic explantions = all of them
Solved mysteries that had supernatural explanations = none of them

weeping, what is actually known about Reiki is that it does not appear to be harmful. Regarding people being conned for their money, I believe that is wrong on any level and I have said so upthread.

Regarding treatments, the NHS only tend to mention it being possibly useful as a complimentary or palliative therapy because of the lack of evidence over its efficacy. That is the tack I would take, personally, advising anyone.

However I do believe if people are deemed to have capacity they should be allowed to choose to accept standard (NHS) treatment or not. I say that as someone who is undergoing pretty standard NHS treatment for cancer. Some standard treatments are hard going people should be allowed to withdraw themselves from them.

Solved mysteries that had naturalistic explantions = all of them
Solved mysteries that had supernatural explanations = none of them

What about unsolved mysteries? Unsolvable mysteries?

Tabby, Examples of human beings lying, being deluded or mistaken = millions a day. Every day. Since human beings evolved.

So. This does not mean it is never appropriate to give people the benefit of the doubt. To hold judgement until you find out more. Even if what they are saying is not strictly true it might be true in terms of their perception of their experiences, it might still hold some truth. This is just being inquisitive. All information that people relay tells you something. If you actually listen to people you might actually learn something new.

So. This does not mean it is never appropriate to give people the benefit of the doubt.

About what? That they've had an experience? I don't doubt that, usually...although sometimes they are clearly lying.

But if they think they've harnessed some unknown aspect of physics that defeats every PhD on earth, then they are simply wrong. So, no..the "benefit of the doubt" is not approrpriate at all,

And I doubt there's any such thing as an "unsolvable" mystery. With regard to "unsolved mysteries" then obviously the answer is not going to come from some "supernatural realm". If there is some event that affects human beings then it has occured within the material world and is detectable via normal scientific processes.

Really, how silly. This is akin to having to explain to children why there aren't monsters under the bed.

"Some standard treatments are hard going people should be allowed to withdraw themselves from them."

Of course they should. How is that relevant?

Tabby the crux of it is how you define the term 'supernatural'. the OED says this:

"Definition of supernatural in English:

supernatural
ADJECTIVE

1(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
'a supernatural being’"

Now, 'beyond scientific understanding' could be taken to mean beyond current scientific understanding or beyond scientific understanding ever.

Personally, I use the former because I think it is impossible to extrapolate what scientific study will and will not be able to achieve, in terms of understanding in future (until infinity). To attempt to do so, I would consider unscientific.

A perspective which makes the supernatural a lot more easily acceptable and less controversial.

Of course they should. How is that relevant?

Bertrand, it is relevant because bemoaning the existence of unproven alternative treatments being available is just one step away from denying people the autonomy to chose something unproven as an alternative to the standard treatment which they have every right to decline.

If there is some event that affects human beings then it has occured within the material world and is detectable via normal scientific processes.

If something was an effect of the manifestation of some supernatural event then only the physical effect could be detectable via normal scientific processes. This is because the supernatural element is not detectable via normal scientific processes simply by definition of it being supernatural.

For example, how would you detect a radio wave was present without the equipment to detect/receive radio waves being discovered or invented?

Magpie

Well, let's make a distinction between "the supernatural" and "supernatural claims", shall we?

Firstly, there's simply no evidence that there's any such thing as the supernatural. Indeed, if there was evidence for such a thing then there would be nothing "super" about it...it would simply be natural. The universe is all known things and natural laws are all known processes.

Science cannot be expected to go looking for something outside all known things because, you see, things have to be known in order for us to be able to go and look for things there...otherwise, how would we know where to look? This is why science does not investigate "the supernatural". It can't.

What it can investigate is "supernatural claims" where people like you claim that some event is real and true and the only reason that scientists can't detect it is because it's "outside of all known things" aka "supernatural".

But here's where you are going wrong....the event described and person experiencing it are not "supernatural"...they are very much natural. They exist within the known universe and, as such, are subject to the same scientific tests as anything else. Because, and here's the thing, even an event that has "supernatural" origins MUST have a natural component in order to make itself known within our universe.

A "universal life force" that can relieve lumbago cannot be anything other than a natural phenomenon with measurable, natural effects.

Science can investigate anything...and it does. The only people who raise the "supernatural" as an explanation are people, like you, who hate the fact that your personal beliefs are not supported by evidence. So you lift up the escape hatch, climb out and declare that, "Oh well, maybe there's a supernatural explanation" ignoring the fact that it's just been proved to you that no explanation is needed at all.

Reikki doesn't work. It doesn't cure anyone of anything, There can be no natural or "supernatural" explanation for a phenomenon that doesn't exist because....it doesn't exist.

Science does not make the distinction you are making between natural & supernatural claims. It just deals with the claims. "Supernatural" is an excuse, and rather a childish one at that.

Er, radio waves were predicted mathematically. Instruments just confirmed them

“Bertrand, it is relevant because bemoaning the existence of unproven alternative treatments being available is just one step away from denying people the autonomy to chose something unproven as an alternative to the standard treatment which they have every right to decline“

That really is bollocks, you know.

I do reiki. Specifically for women's healing following trauma, miscarriage, ttc and regulating cycles. I have excellent success rate. Even if it was just the relaxing that helped!

I do not charge for my service.

It's not scary, or dangerous!

Anyway, the investigations into alternative therapies are not about how they work. First it has to be shown that they work. And they don’t. Every single one that has been properly investigated has shown to have exactly the same results as a placebo. If they were shown to work that would be the time to start investigating the process.

Magpie

Is that honestly how you think science works? That they invent machines to detect something that, until they invent the machine, they have no earthly idea exists?

"Today, I am going to invent a device to detect radio waves".
"What are radio waves?"
"Oh, I don't know. I haven't invented the device yet".

Dear me.

weeping, what is actually known about Reiki is that it does not appear to be harmful

But it is harmful, because practitioners tell sick people they are going to help them with things that they can't do. That is harmful.

Tabby, you don't know me and further to this appear not even to have read what I have posted in this thread. If you do you will see that I have made no claims concerning the efficacy of Reiki.

What annoys me is the arrogance and rudeness present in posts such as your last when you make completely uncorroborated assumptions concerning what someone else does or does not believe or what they would say in a given situation. Not very scientific that, is it?

I do reiki. Specifically for women's healing following trauma, miscarriage, ttc and regulating cycles. I have excellent success rate. Even if it was just the relaxing that helped!

What do you tell them you do? What do you promise them?

A surgeon was recently telling my mil that he has been using leaches - real, live blood sucking leaches! - I forget what for (strokes or heart attacks I think).

It just shows you the modern medicine doesn’t have all the answers. I suppose the millions that use traditional Chinese medicine agree.

That really is bollocks, you know.

No, what is really 'bollocks', as you so delicately put it, is giving a value judgement without stating your reason.

Nothing remotely "rude" about facts.

Erm...nothing "alternative" about using leeches. Science has found them to be efficacious sometimes. Just like it found that the bark of willow trees can dull pain.

A surgeon was recently telling my mil that he has been using leaches - real, live blood sucking leaches! - I forget what for (strokes or heart attacks I think). It just shows you the modern medicine doesn’t have all the answers

It shows the opposite, modern medicine knows exactly why leeches work (and its nothing to do with heart attacks or strokes) and what for. Medicine gives us those answers, that is why they are used.

That's called the fallacy of tradition, btw.