Q&A: On Divine Intervention and Prayer – Second Question
On Divine Intervention and Prayer – Second Question
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The Rabbi makes the following claims:
1.
A. It is well known that mood/righteousness affects one’s medical condition.
B. It is impossible to measure mood/righteousness as an influence on people’s condition.
C. Even so, we trust studies that do not take these parameters into account.
D. Apparently, in our view, mood and righteousness are not really all that important.
2.
A. There are accidents, illnesses, etc.
B. Everyone always looks for the technical cause, and not at the “righteousness” of the passengers or the “patients.”
C. Apparently we assume that there is no connection at all between righteousness and accidents or illnesses.
Well then, claim 2 is pretty clearly refuted nowadays, and I would recommend that the Rabbi revise this argument when a new edition of the book comes out.
The whole internet is full of lectures by rabbis and God-fearing people trying to explain why we got the coronavirus and even how to be saved from it. Of course, I’m not arguing whether they are right or not in their explanations, but that matters less.
As for claim 1, the question is: if the honored Rabbi is correct, why is there an entire field called “medical psychology”?
Here are quotes from Wikipedia about it:
“Medical psychology deals with the mind-body split by assigning the mind a role both in causing illness and in treating it.”
“Medical psychologists usually work in medical treatment settings such as hospitals and health funds, where they help patients and the medical staff cope with illnesses. Others work in research in the field at universities and academic institutions.”
Likewise, let us note that there is no shortage of rabbis who hold that mood/state of mind is a very powerful factor in healing or in preventing illness. So,
how does this fit with the fact that the honored Rabbi concludes that we do not think mood (mental state) has an effect on medicine for cancer, God forbid, for example — all the medical psychologists who devote themselves to this, according to the Rabbi’s approach, basically know that what they are doing is “not all that important”? All the rabbis who say that joy affects healing are simply talking nonsense?
*By the way, in my humble opinion, and to the best of my reading ability, there is a mistake on page 175 of the book “No Man Rules the Spirit”.
It says there:
“The fact that righteousness cannot be measured is probably true, but even if so, that does not mean that one can trust the medical studies that do not take it into account.”
Answer
Hello Ehud.
Strange arguments, despite how emphatically they are stated.
We all know the slogans. Everyone talks. The question is whether people actually behave accordingly. Everywhere this can be tested—my answer is no.
As for righteousness, you are talking about psychology, but that is part of nature. Righteousness means something supernatural.
I do not see anything inaccurate in what is written here.
Discussion on Answer
What is written in the book seems correct to me. My claim is directed at someone who ties healing to righteousness: he should have taken righteousness into account even if it is not measurable. Therefore he cannot trust studies that do not take it into account. The fact that it is not measurable is no excuse for ignoring it.
Where did I write that mood has no effect? Where is that taken from? Of course it has an effect. Do we need psychologists for that?
I simply cannot understand what you are saying, so it is hard for me to know whether we have any disagreement at all.
The Rabbi wrote on page 175 of “No Man Rules the Spirit” as follows (an exact quote):
“Think of a situation in which it is clear to you that people’s mood is a decisive factor in healing. . . If the study 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 all that important for healing. That is exactly my argument regarding righteousness.”
It is very important to me to make sure I understood the Rabbi’s words correctly. That is why I am writing here, and I do not want to put words in the Rabbi’s mouth—certainly not words he did not mean.
But again, the Rabbi wrote clearly: “That is exactly my argument regarding righteousness,” after speaking beforehand about “mood” as a parameter in healing.
I would be very grateful to the Rabbi for an answer.
I looked at it again, and again I repeat that what is written there is precise.
My claim 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. That is self-contradictory. I add that this is true even if we say that mood is not a measurable parameter. Still, if it has an effect, it cannot be ignored, and one also cannot take seriously a study that ignores it. And the same applies to righteousness (now substitute the word righteousness for mood in all the previous sentences). If a person ignores the effect of righteousness on healing and takes seriously studies that ignore it—that is a sign that he too does not attribute importance to righteousness.
That is exactly what is written there.
I do not understand the world of pharmaceutical research, so I will ask the Rabbi, as a man of science, and to the best of his knowledge:
In every study that comes to test the effectiveness of a drug, whatever drug it may be, did they also check mood states in all the groups being tested?
I am not an expert either. But it is 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 for our issue. The logic is clear and correct. And if they were not doing this in medical research, I would criticize them too.
Honored Rabbi, regarding the book, this is what is written there:
“The fact that righteousness cannot be measured is probably true, but even if so, that does not mean that one can trust the medical studies that do not take it into account.”
In my opinion, this is what should have been written there (notice, a difference of one word):
“The fact that righteousness cannot be measured is probably true, but even if so, that does not mean that one cannot trust the medical studies that do not take it into account.”
It seems to me that it may be right for the honored Rabbi to look again at the book and the context in which this was written, and perhaps this time I came out right.
As for the arguments themselves, the Rabbi wrote:
“We all know the slogans. Everyone talks. The question is whether people actually behave accordingly.”
The Rabbi argued: we have a hidden assumption that mood does not really affect healing. Why? Because we accept studies that did not even examine mood as a parameter. That means that when a medical psychologist comes to work, he has a hidden assumption that the encouragement and conversations he gives patients do not really help healing.
I argue: a medical psychologist comes to work with a full feeling/thought/belief that when he speaks with a sick person, the emotional support he gives that person also helps him recover. Helps him actually recover!
But at this point I assume we have already reached a stage where the Rabbi will continue to stick to his position, and I to mine.
And therefore, in order to avoid a dialogue of the deaf, I should stop here.
Let the readers decide.