Examining the Placebo argument against Christian healing ministry

A chat I had with a friend reminded me that I was due to write a short piece on this, so here goes:

There are several reasons why the placebo argument is not sufficiently sound nor all-encompassing to give confidence to one who holds it.

The placebo argument does not cover all instances of 'faith healing', for a start. There *are* reports of broken legs healing on the spot. These need to be found and more work needs to be done in this area. Dismissing it because it's not easy is not good testing or critical thought. It's easy to accept whatever bolsters your opinion already held.

It also does not take into account the differences between the various claims of healing, the term 'faith healing' shouldn't even really be used, since that term defines a very specific avenue of claims within a much broader spectrum of claims - straw men being disproven means nothing to believers in other claims and accounts.

There are some reports of studies being done that attempt to cover many types of healing, but no one who strongly objects to this argument seems to have been given access to the nature of the tests done and basically sat through them to ensure that the people 'being used' are not just ineffective. What you test and what you study directly effects the output of the study.

Example - Very few Christians live their lives at the level where by they are even remotely likly to experience a supernatural healing that is checkable (ie not happening at a totally random moment). Most people for example, don't like to pray for their sick friends. If you pulled ten Christians at random off the street in any city in the UK, I would be willing to bet that maybe one, but most likely NONE would actually have an active and genuine prayer life (not bed time 'please help me God'), be well into their Bible, seeing the miraculous on a regular basis and basically, able to be 'truely tested'. I have never heard of any named individual of any reputable standing in the Christian, God-healing world who CLAIMS these things, for example Colin Urquart (there are many others), or even someone like Paul Golf or myself being tested.

Why is this? Surely one would stop here first if you wanted to test the biggest claim in the 'healing world'? I know of no other healing group whose claims are as firm or as large as the born-again Christian claims. Fair ground old ladies with 'healing hands' have in comparison a much weaker argument and a far more 'airy fairy' status where by it really isn't checkable medically if they're doing anything. It's like the whole 'what about other culture's creation stories?' argument - show me a credible one that deserves or can stand up to testable, scientific investigation **as much** as the Bible's account and the evolutionism/long age theroys can, and I'll listen.

It seems at the end of the day that the few who are tested and then held up as proof, are NOT the people actually making the grand and proper claim! This is just another, grand looking and impressive-sounding straw man to try and discount the Christian accounts of healing by the power of God. It simply doesn't stand up to cross examination. It is in short - a 'position bolster' excercise.

[NB: The reason IMHO that many Christians are not seeing regular or repeatable miracles, is simple. They are not doing any of the things according to scripture you would do if you wanted that sort of lifestyle, like praying for your mates to get healed and expecting to see healings in your every day life].

You wouldn't do a study of people lifting free weights by testing gym users, you'd ensure these gym users actually ever USED free weighs first, and used them in the described, expected capacity. Users who just sat around on the free weights aren't much use to you.

If the placebo argument was also as proven as some proponents tote it to be, then we'd all be being shown this evidence and we'd be able, as a people, to cure and get rid of with reasonable efficiency, almost all neurological, pathological, chemical and many other types of sickness (paralysis etc). The only type some proponents do not include in this 'faith healing' theroy is physical alterations from normal health, such as broken or missing limbs, fractures or cracks to the bone, torn ligaments regrowing, change of physical appearence, etc.

So someone such as an atheist/agnostic who believed this theory would only have to go through the 'healing process', if it's scientifically pinned down and proven how it can happen, to get better from almost anything; things like hay fever, athsma, M.E, bad backs, headaches, all aches and pains, flu and colds, paranoias, phobias and fears, just about everything except death, broken limbs and physical ailments (which fall outside this theroy). In this case, why the hell aren't we/they lining up for this? It would drop the total sick people off work every day dramatically and improve the country's economy by drastic proportions.

Unless what you're saying is...it's actually alittle bit LESS proven and MORE complicated that that. Which is what I am saying.

In which case, statements such as 'This has been tested, we know it now. There's no need to consider supernatural miracles of this sort any more.' shouldn't be said, if they are not true - even to those who believe themselves they don't need to look any further into it. the fact that it's awefully convinient for one doesn't mean one should tote something that is inaccurate in substance and conclusion.