On Divine Intervention and Prayer – Second Question
Peace be upon you, Rabbi.
The rabbi makes the following claims:
1.
A. It is known that mood/righteousness affects medical condition.
on. It is not possible to measure mood/righteousness as an effect on people’s condition.
third. Nevertheless, people trust studies that do not take these parameters into account.
D. Apparently, in our opinion, it’s a matter of mood and righteousness isn’t really that important.
2.
A. There are accidents, illnesses, etc.
B. Everyone is always looking for the technical factor, not the “righteousness” of the passengers or the “sick”.
C. We probably assume that there is no connection between righteousness and accidents or illnesses.
Well, argument 2 is so clearly unfounded today that it is recommended that the rabbi make a correction to this argument when a new version of the book is published.
The entire internet is full of lectures by rabbis and God-fearing people trying to explain why we got the coronavirus and even how we are saved. I will emphasize, of course, that I am not claiming whether they are right or wrong in their explanations, but that is less important.
Regarding argument 1, the question – if the esteemed Rabbi is right, why is there an entire field called “medical psychology”?
Here are quotes from Wiki about it:
“Medical psychology deals with the mind-body split by proposing a role for the mind as the cause and cure of illness.”
“Medical psychologists often work in healthcare settings such as hospitals and health insurance companies, where they help patients and medical staff cope with illnesses. Others work in research in the field at universities and academic institutions.”
We should also mention that there is no shortage of rabbis who believe that mood/mind is a very powerful factor in healing or preventing illness. So
How does this work out if the fact that the rabbi concludes that we don’t think that mood (state of mind) has an effect on cancer treatment is not up to us (for example) – all the medical psychologists who give up, in fact, according to the rabbi’s method, know that what they do is “not that important” ? All the rabbis who say that joy affects treatment are simply rambling?
*By the way, in my humble opinion, and to the best of my reading ability, there is an error on page 175 of the book “No Man Has Dominion Over the Spirit.”
It says there:
“The fact that fairness cannot be measured is probably true, but even so, that doesn’t mean that medical studies that don’t take it into account can be trusted.”
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your Honor, regarding the book, this is what it says:
“The fact that it is impossible to measure righteousness is probably true, but even so, that does not mean that one can trust medical studies that do not take it into account.”
In my opinion, this is what should have been written (note, one word difference):
“The fact that it is impossible to measure righteousness is probably true, but even so, that does not mean that one cannot trust medical studies that do not take it into account.”
It seems to me that perhaps the esteemed Rabbi will be interested again in the book in which this was written, and perhaps I was right this time.
Regarding the claims themselves. The Rabbi wrote:
“We all know the slogans. Everyone talks. The question is whether we behave accordingly”
The Rabbi claimed: We have a hidden assumption that mood does not really affect healing. Why? Because we accept studies that did not examine mood as a parameter at all. For example, when a medical psychologist comes to work, he has a hidden assumption that the encouragement and conversations he gives to patients do not really help with healing.
I claim: A medical psychologist comes to work with the feeling/thought/full belief that when he talks to a sick person, the emotional support he gives the person also helps him heal. Really helps him heal!
But here I assume that we have reached a situation where the Rabbi will continue to adhere to his position, and I to mine.
Therefore, in order to prevent a dialogue of Deaf people, I should stop here.
Let the readers decide.
What is written in the book seems correct to me. My argument is that for those who attribute healing to justice, they should have taken justice into account even if it is not measurable. Therefore, they cannot trust studies that do not take it into account. The fact that it is not measurable is not an excuse for ignoring this.
Where did I write that mood does not affect? Where does that come from? Of course it does. Do we need psychologists for that?
I simply cannot understand what you are saying, and therefore it is difficult for me to know if we are having any argument.
The Rabbi wrote on page 175 of ”No Man Has Control over the Spirit” as follows (exact quote):
“Think about a situation where it is clear to you that people's mood is a decisive factor in healing. . . If the research still works and we still trust it, it is clear that we have an implicit assumption, it is clear that we have an implicit assumption that mood is not that important for healing. This is exactly my argument regarding justifications”.
It is very important to me to make sure that I understood the Rabbi's words correctly, I am writing here, and I do not want to “put words in the Rabbi's mouth” certainly not ones he did not mean.
But again the Rabbi wrote clearly: “This is exactly my argument regarding justifications”, when he spoke earlier about “mood” as a parameter for healing.
I would like to thank the Rabbi for the answer.
I looked again and I repeat again that what is written there is accurate.
My argument is that if a person takes seriously a study that ignores the effect of mood, he cannot say that mood is an important parameter in healing. This is a cryptic statement. I add that this is true even if it is said that mood is not a measurable parameter. Still, if it has an effect, it cannot be ignored, and neither can a study that ignores it be taken seriously. And the same is true for righteousness (now quote the word righteousness instead of mood in all the previous sentences). If a person ignores the effect of righteousness on healing and takes seriously the studies that ignore it – it is a sign that he also does not attach importance to righteousness..
That is exactly what is written there.
I don't understand the world of drug research, so I will ask the Rabbi, as a scientist, and to the best of his knowledge:
Did every study that came to test the effectiveness of a drug (no matter which one) also test moods in all the groups tested?
I'm not an expert either. But it's clear that they try to neutralize this effect in various ways (such as double blinding, choosing balanced and large sample and control groups, etc.). But none of this is important to our case. The logic is clear and correct. If they didn't do this in medical research, I would criticize them too.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
