Faith Healing is Effective

Thanks for the response bob. ==Rebuttal== Topic My opponent does a good job of trying to define me out of the debate round. I hadn't initially realized that his definition of faith healing was so restrictive, since the additional "healing" from faith post-op comes from prayer and not any Western medicine. But we should examine how an actual dictionary defines faith healing, not just a definition picked from thin air. Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary defines faith healing as a method of treatment by prayer. Nowhere does it say to the exclusion of any other interventions. Many other types of "alternative medicines" exist that rely on spiritual, "natural," or non-Western medicine, or hypnosis, or energy healing (acupuncture). However, each of these alternative systems acknowledge that there is a time and place for their treatments. My opponent essentially expects me to win that if someone is bleeding to death, that person can be cured through prayer rather than through a blood transfusion and clipping the artery at the bleed site. No system of alternative medicine could ever meet this burden of proof. Examples of Faith healing My opponent offers two examples of faith healing without refuting them, so I guess I win. There are now two unrefuted examples of faith healing in the debate round. Here are also three examples of spontaneous cancer remission through prayer and positive thinking. [1] Examples of spontaneous cancer remission are widespread, even outside the faith healing literature. [2] Cancer is a disease that can most definitely be influenced by visualization and positive thinking, even in the absence of other treatments. Regarding the Derren Brown piece, I really like Derren Brown but I shouldn't have to defend every crackpot faith healer that claims he can cure everything. There are a lot of crazies out there that Darren Brown debunks, like people who think they can speak to the dead. All I should have to defend is that faith healing can be an effective treatment. My opponent says, In my opinion, three criteria must be met: (1) the ailment must be one that normally doesn't recover without treatment; (2) there must not have been any medical treatment that would be expected to influence the ailment; and (3) both diagnosis and recovery must be demonstrable by detailed medical evidence." The second two criteria are acceptable, but the first is ridiculous. Theoretically, we can recover from most illnesses and problems without treatment. Our immune system is pretty incredible. My opponent essentially wants me to have to defend that prayer could prevent someone from bleeding to death. No alternative medicine system could meet this burden of proof. The meta-study My opponent's ONLY refutations here are 1) I don't provide a link to the actual meta-study and 2) all meta-studies are potentially flawed. Let's address #1. I apologize to my opponent that I do not have a subscription to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and I could not locate an online abstract for the study, but this is not some bogus study. It is the definitive study on the power of positive thinking. Here is a WebMD link to the same study to show I'm not pulling some obscure bogus study off the ABC Website. [3] Addressing the #2. Sure, any study can be wrong, but meta-studies are not inherently worse than regular studies. In fact, a meta-study is BETTER than a regular study because by examining multiple studies, it ensures that factors that bias the results of individual studies will disappear when we look at more data points. 15 of the 16 studies done on this issue found that patients who expected and visualized positive health outcomes were more likely to achieve positive health outcomes than a control group. All 16 studies had control groups, as any good study would have. My opponent's generic criticism of all meta-studies fails and is antithetical to the very idea of a meta-study as being more accurate than a single study. So remember, by praying and through faith in God, people come to believe that they will recover, and a meta-study proves that believing you will recover makes you more likely to recover. Positive thinking is not some bogus idea. It is proven by studies on the placebo effect. It is proven by spouses or pets who die faster when their loved one passes away. Intercessory prayer Intercessory prayer is prayer on another person's behalf – something my opponent doesn't bother explaining. He tries to use studies on intercessory prayer to disprove my meta-study that PERSONAL prayer leads to better health outcomes. Of course, a congregation of people praying on your behalf is not going to make you recover faster. My opponent's study by David Hodge, that people who are prayed for by others actually had WORSE health outcomes is also most definitely true. But it does not prove that intercessory prayer is bad for your health, as Hodge tries to conclude. The study tries to conclude that A causes B, but B actually causes A, a simple correlation/causation fallacy. People in worse health are more likely to be prayed for. The pastor does not rouse his congregation to pray for someone when that person had a quick and easy recovery and is already out of the hospital. The pastor rouses his congregation to pray for someone whose recovery is ALREADY not going well. So at the end of the day, I agree that having OTHER PEOPLE pray for you will not achieve better health outcomes, but it has been unrefuted in this debate that PERSONAL prayer and belief in God DOES lead to better health outcomes. I have thus proven that faith healing can be an effective treatment, but we must be aware of the contexts where it may be useful (post-op recovery, cancer remission, etc) and where it is not useful (stopping blood loss). As with any alternative medicine, faith healing can be extremely effective, as long as we use it in the right situations. Affirmed. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com...