So how about a "Rationality, Scepticism & Atheism" section?

[UnquietDad]

Where people can actually have sensible discussions about the debunking of the paranormal, and the lack of evidence for any of the crystal-healing-aura-chakra-reiki-throw-your-hands-in the-air-and-say woooooooooo healing rubbish.

Because I'm getting fed up with trying to remind the people in Philosophy, Religion and Woo that we actually live in the 21st Century.

I don't think most complementary therapists want to practice 'medicine'. Their view of what constitutes health is usually very different from that of an orthodox doctor. People use complementary therapy because for them, it works. It does the job they want it to do (i.e. makes them feel better in some way).

It's always been this way. If something works - in that it does the job people want it to do they will use it. Orthodox medicine initially became big, not because of clinical trials but because it was better and works better than the alternative (bleeding etc).

Complementary therapy will remain big -despite sneering about lack of clinical trials- because it makes people feel better.

it is possible for the two to co-exist. In China for example both orthodox and chinese medicine is widely used and both are accepted.

We're lucky to have access to both. Orthodox medicine obviously is able to tackle many -particularly serious- conditions far more successfully than complementary- but there are many many conditions that impact on health that it has very little it can offer. Long term pain for example- can often be difficult to control with orthodox medications, can respond very well to complementary. Ditto back problems. My son's condition - severe autism- currently there is bugger all that orthodox medicine can offer us - apart from risperidone - but quite a lot that we can try out from complementary therapists that make his life easier.

Read though (most!) of this and am firmly with UQD. I think that we all accept the "I don't agree but will defend the right to ....." arguement far too readily. Some also use it as a reason not to question others beliefs.

I am an athiest - I see no reason to believe in a God, and plenty of reasons not to.

I feel kind of disappointed that people need to believe that there is "something else out there" in order to live a fulfilling life.

I don't see that religion has a connection with alternative/complementary therapies????

there are lots of orthodox medical people who've gone over to the dark side

what about them? were they charlatans all along? or did they use their evidence based methodology to look for something that really worked for their patients?

stuffitlama - I don't think any conventionally qualified medical practitioner would ever tell their patients/clients that they could cure cancer by having coffee enemas, or that they could diagnose allergies by looking at the hair, or...I could go on. Now that's charlatanism. Discovering that back pain can be eased by acupuncture and learning how to do it is not.

that's what I mean -- you can't tar all alternative therapies with the same brush, you have to examine the merits of each one

once you've accepted that there is a different path, it becomes more difficult to choose which one

I do think it's moderately easy to tell, though. At a risk of offending some people - the clearly bonkers stand out a mile. Then there are the "well if it makes you happy - and it might just be doing some good" And then the "OK, this clearly works in some way that we don't yet completely understand" And finally, "It's a drug. Just because it's a plant doesn't mean it's not also a chemical - where do you think practically every drug you could take comes from?"

seeker - your first category is placebo, the second is worthy of investigation through clinical trials to be understood more fully, and the third... well, if it works, it's medicine, isn't it?

nervousal - not directly. But people who are sceptical about one often tend to be sceptical of the other.

I agree,UQD, but people who use Chinese herbs, or St John's Wort are always saying that they don't trust conventional medicine. I want to biff them on the head and say "It's a drug, you peanut brain - where do you think aspirin comes from?" But I don't, because I'm a nice person.

And, actually, I do make a distinction between the clearly bonkers and the placebo. I put the allergy testing by hair analysis into the clearly bonkers camp - and homeopathy into the placebo camp. Simply because I think there is more possibility of exploitation (emotional and financial) with then bonkers ones.

kc not all faiths are the same- some don't have a gd to start with, others have 1 or millions.

UQD it belongs in philosophy, because thats what it is. Unless we're going to have a category fo each belief sysem which would be bollocks frankly

Unless someone is directly causing you harm , I dont understand why you cant let others just be.

"I don't agree but will defend the right to ....."

disagree with every fibre of my being

unless something causes us or others harm why on earth should I want to deny them that?

the old lady (loads here) whose only social life is Church based? The Nun who shuts herself quietly away to pray? The Christian Aid worker acting in China as part of DEC?

It's no more my business to criticise than the colour of your shoes

unles they're crocs obv

But what if you think what another group believes is actively doing harm to another individual or society? I am, for example, very worried about the strengthening of the Christian Right in the Sates, and increasingly, here. People can believe that the world was created in 7 days if they want to, but if they start wanting it to be taught in schools then I want them stopped.

in that case and in that example i totally agree, challenge away

but a lot of religion doesnt harm anyone- most people are not extremist.

Far better imo to use energy educating about the genuine messages of the faith branches / tackling extremism than bothering joe x over his daily prayer

Am more than happy to say all extremist religion is bullshit, the vast majority of extreme anything is worrying- that is the nature of extreme things

which is of course very buddhisr

middle way anyone?

Christian Aid do brilliant work, but then so do lots of secular people.

I have this argument with my mother all the time, because she reiterates that "only the church people" in her village go out of their way to help people like her.

I argue that it's not because they go to church, it's because they're nice people anyway, and they help her because they know her from church. But no, they do it out of "Christian charity". If I find examples of people with no faith who are doing good things with refugees, homeless etc, then it's because "they are doing Christian work and don't know it." Aaaaaaaaagh!!!!

we are good at that kind of thing
i can well imagine the effect

all said with a beatific smile of course!

I think people who do these things are inclined towards goodness yes

but sometimes the Churh provides confidence, motivation, even just the opportunity to meet like minded people

In cities there are more opportunities- in villages like those in South Wales where we are atm, so much focuses on the Church, it's by far the best place to meet people, and likewise the source of much community support. Back home the role of the vicar was almost non existent outside the Church; here old Arthur is an immensely important part of the community, and not just the Christian one either; he spends loads of time helping refugees do forms etc- things that in other places would be done by local charities etc

And like many villages if that didnt exist there'd be nobody to fill the gap- most residents either work 15 hour days to pay the mortgae or are elderly (or here, are students)

Don't be silly UQD. You know you love it.