Homeopathy & Benny Hinn
ho·me·op·a·thy
the method of treating disease by drugs, given in minute doses, that would produce in a healthy person symptoms similar to those of the disease (opposed to allopathic or conventional medicine)
Homeopathy operates under the “law of similars” – the notion that a malady should be treated by an element that causes like symptoms in a healthy person. This element is repeatedly diluted in water (or alcohol) and “succussed” (shaken), often to the extent where no molecules of the element remain in the homeopathic solution. Homeopaths insist, however, that the water retains a “memory” of the element, even if the element itself is diluted out of the solution. Stranger still, the more diluted a solution, the more powerful its supposed effect. (Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of modern homeopathy, at one point claimed that a powerful (dilute) homeopathic solution need not be imbibed, but merely smelled, in order to have its desired effects.)
Sound goofy? Wait, it gets goofier.
The following excerpt is quoted from an article written by Paul Bahder, MD; and originally appeared in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy.
First let us focus on fundamental peculiarities of homeopathy and its differences from conventional, allopathic medicine. Homeopathy differs in its understanding as to the goal of treatment. It does not address or seek to eliminate physical signs and symptoms but understands them to be expressions of the vital force. In homeopathy we are not trying to manipulate physiology, change high fever to low, eliminate pain, swelling or redness. We are not even trying to eliminate anger, anxiety or sadness. Our ideal is “to restore health rapidly, gently, permanently.” And as to what health is, we can look to the brilliant definition of health given by George Vithoulkas: “Health is freedom.. freedom from pain in the physical body, having attained a state of well-being; freedom from passion on the emotional level, having as a result a dynamic state of serenity and calm; and freedom from selfishness in the mental sphere, having as a result total unification with the Truth.”
In other words, health in homeopathy in its highest aspect is understood as a process of opening up to the spiritual, that is supramental realm, in ever greater submission to It and toward eventual “unification with It”. This can take place and the patient is thus elevated unto a higher level of health, into the realm of higher freedom, where he or she is released from material sense of limitation when the homeopath himself functions at this level.
Similarly, Dr. Randy Martin states:
…homeopathy helps to bring about harmony to the human body/mind/spirit by intervening in the energetic process of the individual. In other words, the correct homeopathic remedy will help to unblock the energetic “kinks” in a person which are keeping them from progressing on their emotional and spiritual path. Herbs and vitamins won’t do that, because they only work on the physical and chemical level and not on the energetic level.
The correct homeopathic remedy will also help to create more clarity in the individual. The remedies will agitate that which is pathological in a person. If a person is fearful, deceitful, angry, jealous, suspicious, dishonest, or just downright confused, the homeopathic remedy will help to create clarity in the person so that they have a greater degree of the type of freedom they need to engage life head on, in order to change that particular problem behaviors. On the other hand, if the person is very powerful, but has trouble expressing and manifesting that power, the remedy will help them to come more fully into their hidden source of power. If the person is fearful of robbers or rape, for instance, it’s going to help them energetically to clear this energy out of their auric field.
Vital force? Unification with the Truth? Auric field? This is not medicine. This is New Age voodoo.
The National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) has a very balanced and brief history/definition of homeopathy. Under heading 9. Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy?, the report states:
Some people feel that if homeopathy appears to be helpful and safe, then scientifically valid explanations or proofs of this alternative system of medicine are not necessary.
So, the homeopath has isolated himself from reason and the scientific method.
…
This is where I make the Benny connection. Mr. Hinn, along with other faith healers, claims to have healed countless people across the globe. Sick people flock to his crusades with the desperate hope of being healed of their diseases. I own The Many Faces of Benny Hinn DVD, a six hour collection of documentaries and exposes on Mr. Hinn’s healing ministry. One image that has always stuck with me is a sea of wheelchairs at one of Hinn’s crusades – a multitude of seriously ill. Of course, these folks never make it to Hinn’s stage.
I have only met one person who has claimed to have been healed at a Benny Hinn crusade. This individual said she suffered from chronic headaches (or some other chronic pain). She said this pain disappeared after attending Hinn’s crusade.
It seems to me that her story is representative of the vast majority of “healings” at Hinn’s and others’ crusades. Hinn never regenerates limbs. He never restores sight to the blind or hearing to the deaf. Those “cured” at Hinn’s crusades almost invariably suffer from some kind of chronic pain or other nondescript infirmity.
In other words, the kinds of health problems that naturally fluctuate. Even those who suffer from very serious chronic pain experience ups and downs. This leaves the hopeful crusader susceptible to the regression fallacy: a false ascription of causation due to the failure to account for natural fluctuations. “Of course, my headaches went away because Brother Hinn knocked me over with his Nehru jacket!” Nevermind that the headaches came back a week later. (Probably, because you lost faith…)
Those who believe in these kinds of “faith healings” also fail to consider the placebo effect, or the power of suggestion. As much as I hate to admit it, the faith healers, the namers-and-claimers, the health and wealth peddlers, the prosperity pimps, etc. do preach a grain of truth: there is a real power in positive thinking. Mind over matter, as they say.
This explains, in large measure, the supposed “power of prayer”. Please, don’t misunderstand. I believe that “the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective”. However, when universities study the “power of prayer”, they are not only studying born-again, Bible-believing, Christians. They are taking into account Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. And the results of these studies are positive across the board. This “power of prayer” works for the Hindu as effectively as it does for the Christian. And this shouldn’t surprise. God is not a genie. He does not wait in heaven with a prayer scale, waiting for the right amount or intensity of prayer before He heals a particular invalid. The “power of prayer” is really the power of the human mind. A sick person who truly believes that God (or some other supernatural force) is going to heal him will have a much more positive outlook than the atheist. This positive outlook has a real impact on the body’s ability to fight to illness. (To a degree, of course. No amount of happy thoughts will stave off Stage IV lung cancer.)
…
I believe the same errors are in operation for those who buy into homeopathy. Consider the following quote by Wendy Kaminer, author of Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety:
When I go to my homeopath maybe I’m following one of the precepts of the recovery movement that I’ve always derided: I’m thinking with my heart and not my head. Or maybe I’m acting rationally after all. Believing in homeopathy may be irrational, but not using homeopathy if it works would be even more irrational. I care only if medicine works, not why. (I have the vaguest understanding of antibiotics.)
So I don’t listen to scientists eager to tell me why homeopathic remedies can’t possibly work, because they violate the laws of chemistry. Assuming that the scientists are right, and the remedies I’ve taken are mere placebos, why would I want to start doubting – and diminishing – their effectiveness? Why not be susceptible to placebos?
(Quote found here.)
Ms. Kaminer doesn’t use homeopathy because it makes sense, or because it is true. In fact, she concedes that it is irrational. She uses it, because “it works”. So, according to Ms. Kaminer, the snake oil salesman really isn’ t all that bad of a guy, as long as he makes his customers feel better. The snake oil, after all, is no less effective (scientifically/medically speaking) a placebo than the homeopathic solution. If the snake oil and salesman are able to place a patient in a more positive frame of mind, and thus trigger a “healing” placebo effect, no harm/no foul. Right? Postmodern medicine, anyone…?
What really irks me, however, is the fact that Ms. Kaminer, along with the vast majority of homeopathic enthusiasts, will one day visit a real doctor. The day when they discover that lump. Or the day when their child contracts a serious meningitis. When Ms. Kaminer is faced with real disease (not some nebulous pain), she will drive straight past the Wellness Center to the good ole’ M.D.
Therein lies the cognitive dissonance. Homeopathy and modern medicine operate on conflicting theories. You can’t have it both ways. Either (really dilute) like cures like, or it doesn’t. Either the pathogenic theory of medicine (the conventional notion that microorganisms cause disease – the foundation of modern medicine) is true, or the homeopathic theory (that disease is caused by an imbalance in one’s vital force) is. They can’t both be true.
As I mentioned here in regards to vaccinations, this kind of anti-scientific attitude is stupendously unappreciative of the undeserved blessings bestowed upon 21st Century man via modern medicine.
—————-
Now playing: Sufjan Stevens – They Also Mourn Who Do Not Wear Black (For the Homeless in Muskegon)
via FoxyTunes
hmmm Jim
I gotta tell you,
My mother- in-law has been fighting cancer for over 40 years. It metastasized to her lungs. I’m not sure but I thought she told me she was originally diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. I’ll check with her the next time I talk to her. The doctors told her to go home. There was nothing they could do for her and that she would die. That was over 30 years ago. She’s a christian and has deep faith. I don’t agree with everything she believes but you said positive thinking won’t cure stage 4 cancer.
Mary,
I would say God’s sovereign grace healed your mother-in-law, not positive thinking. I believe that the prayers of the righteous are effective, and that God graciously answered the prayers of your mother-in-law and her believing loved ones with a miraculous healing. I simply wouldn’t attribute a healing of stage-4 cancer with the “power of the mind”.
Hope that makes my thinking on this clearer.
God Bless
Yes, I understand. To make myself clearer in case I wasn’t clear- I know it wasn’t her positive thinking but the power of God to heal her.
Thanks for that Jim. God Bless.
Many times, I hear “the placebo effect” spoken of in negative terms when in actuality, it is a very powerful effect. The results of a placebo shows just how powerful our minds can be not just to well being but also to our physical health. When one has the opportunity to experience such a phenomenon, it is nothing short of miraculous….
Rebecca,
I think the great tragedy in life is that we don’t thank God for His kindness and mercies everyday. I work in the medical field and I hear it again and again- people are healed by the hand of a doctor, the latest medicine, or the latest cutting edge surgery. The last one we attibute healing to is the creator of life Himself.
I agree Mary,
Just the other night we were thanking GOD for the miracle of the medication my wife has been taking that has brought much relief in her illness and yet at the same time we never forget to petition the Lord for a complete healing (physical) so that the medications aren’t needed.
IBIJ,
He is good isn’t He!
I have seen miracle after miracle. Recently I did testing on a young woman who had tried to commit suicide by strangulation. It was not looking good at all. I stopped in a few days later and she was sitting up in bed talking to her mother. What a relief on her parents’ faces. But how many people really thank God for things like this? And even the smaller things. I’m preaching to myself as well.
Very, very good article. Thank you so much! I like how you distinguished the power of God with the power of positive thinking. I live in Los Angeles and it is overflowing with this mindset.
Check this out: http://www.justinpeters.org and be sure to watch the video Mr. Peters has there of his overview of “A Call for Discernment” on Hinn and the likes. He gave the full length seminar at my church and comes highly recommended by my pastor, Dr. John MacArthur.
What is most unique about Peters’ perspective is that he lives with cerebral palsy.
Jim B., Rebecca, Mary, but mostly Jim,
How can you spend all this time rejecting homeopathy because there’s no “scientific evidence” and it defies laws of chemistry, and then immediately turn around and start talking about “God” and his powers. Does this not strike you as slightly hypocritical? What makes “vital force” less believable “God”? At least homeopathy has empirical evidence in favor of it. If you think God can exist against chemical and physical odds, why can’t homeopathy function? How can you say “They both can’t be true” regarding homeopathic theories but still think that, regarding God and science these can both be true? Surely both of these assumptions can’t be true? If you believe in God you are in no position to use scientific evidence against any other philosophy.
bk (British Knights?),
I think you’re confusing categories here. Homeopathic theories are readily testable. We can (and many have) subject various persons with various maladies to homeopathic treatments and see if they work. Either like cures like, or it doesn’t.
What, pray tell, are the “chemical and physical odds” against the existence of God? The question of the existence of God is a different category of question. We can’t test in a lab or in a double-blind test whether or not God exists.
I think many rabid atheists make the mistake of creating a false dillema here. The question is not, “God or science.” Again, these are two different categories of questions. Science answers the “how” question, while God answers the why and who questions. You can look at a drought and explain it with scientifically predictable weather patterns and ecological factors. As a Christian, I don’t argue with your “how” explanation – in fact, I greatly appreciate it. This “how” answer, however, doesn’t preclude a “why” and “who” answer. (As a Christian, I don’t often – if ever – have a good “why” answer for droughts, but I certainly have a “who” answer.) You’re science doesn’t refute God – from a Christian perspective, it merely (I don’t mean to say “merely” in a trivializing way – I love science and believe it is a noble and worthwhile pursuit) tells me HOW God did something.
At this point, we have moved beyond scientific query. You cannot disprove the existence of God in any scientific sense, and likewise I cannot prove it. We have moved into the arena of foundational presuppositions – those ideas we hold in an absence of scientific proof. We ALL have these presuppositions. The trick at this point is to honestly evaluate which unprovable presuppositions make the most sense of the world in which we live. I maintain the Christian worldview (presupposition) crushes the atheistic worldview (and all other theistic/deistic/atheistic worldviews) every time.
God Bless
First of all I would like to thank you for responding, I was afraid, given the dates of previous posts, that no one would check in. Second, I do agree with you on some of what you said, I find the atheistic perspective to be quite unbelievable as well, and I hope I didn’t come across as one in my post.
However, I think it’s incorrect to say that Christianity is compatible with western science. And I also think its incorrect to think that western sciences tests on homeopathy are completely valid. I will address these separately.
Science and Christianity
I would hold that that physical and chemical principles of western science do reject Christianity and its God. The first instance of this, and the most crucial, is Mary’s conception of Jesus without the introduction of human sperm. This is definitively impossible from a scientific standpoint. Then, Jesus went on to specialize in breaking the laws of science (walking on water, turning water to wine, ect.), finishing off by having his body raised from the grave by his invisible father. I know that Christians say that the bible is metaphorical, but if you say that Mary’s conception of jesus was metaphorical you consequently recognize that jesus was not the son of God, but rather whatever man Mary had copulated with. Then the whole story falls to pieces. And if you believe that Jesus was indeed the son of God, you are going against one of the crucial understandings of science (namely the process of reproduction).
Another case is God himself. Western science, in its strict adherence to the universality of upward causation (the explanation of all cognitive and mental phenomena through biological and physical processes) functions on the assumption that no sentient being can exist without a physical form. What is god’s physical form? If he has one, it must be finite. If it’s finite, how does he hear all of our prayers? And now that (thanks to western science) he has a whole universe to care for, how does he hear the prayers of the organisms that inevitably (according to western science) must exist elsewhere in the universe. According to Western science sound can’t travel through space, so he must be in our atmosphere and all other atmospheres at once. However, in order to do this, his body would have to span vast stretches of outer space, which western science asserts in inhospitable for any being. Of course, the idea that he hears all of our prayers is goofy (just as you described homeopathy). But then what do you say, that the prayers travel in the form of some vital force? Science, again because it only prescribes to upward causation, does not allow for the existence of any such spiritual forces, let alone beings.
So science poses many problems to Christianity.
Western science and homeopathy
Now I would like to address your claim that we have sufficiently tested the efficacy of homeopathy. We haven’t, because we apply western scientific methods to a knowledge system that is fundamentally different from western science. Homeopathy functions on different foundational presuppositions, so of course it won’t seem to be viable when judged by the presuppositions of western science. Similarly, western science seems quite goofy and incomplete when assessed from the perspective of Tibetan Medicine for example, which is itself another highly developed system of medicine that functions (quite effectively) on different presuppositions. Obviously western science must be assessed by its own standards in order to make any sense. We have to recognize that western science is just one theory, and does not have the authority to push its methods onto other knowledge systems. We can’t claim to gain knowledge of a medical theory by ignoring its principles and inserting our own, it doesn’t translate.
So while you are right to say that Homeopathy and Christianity are two completely different things, they share one thing in common. They are both seen as highly problematic by western scientific standards. My suggestion then is not to forgo religion for science, but to embrace the fact that western science is not a universal truth, it doesn’t explain everything. What you say about presuppositions is right. But an embrace of Christianity and science presents problems. Either one must look at the bible as metaphorical (by this step accepting that the events never really took place), or renounce the validity of western science. Taking the metaphor stance, one would become basically just a pantheist (which would be wonderful by the way, I mean this in al sincerity). But either way, any religious or spiritual viewpoint has to hold on to something that cannot be explained by Western science. And my point is precisely this. If you believe something that can’t be explained by science, how can you reject and make fun of homeopathy, a highly developed body of knowledge that can’t be explained by Western science?
I would like to make one clarification. I know it seems hypocritical of me to say that Homeopathy and other knowledge systems can’t be subjected to Western methods (if the goal is to gleam any true understanding of the efficacy or value of the system), while I am simultaneously subjecting religion, namely the contextually significant Chrsitianity, to these very same Western scientific methods. By doing this, i am only answering the claim that Christianity does not go against western scientific methods.
Another thing to take into consideration is that Homeopathy, as a knowledge system, has its own set of understandings and theories that comprise a comprehensive methodology. So when researching homeopathy, this should be taken into account. However, Christianity, as a religion, is not a knowledge system and not, by itself, intellectually comprehensive. It, as you have suggested, relies on Western science for the how questions, so perhaps it is more appropriate to impose western scientific scrutiny onto Christianity, although i personally think it is still a futile and useless thing to do, and I normally wouldn’t do it. I’m very sorry for the long windedness. But i want to stress again that i am not an atheist, and while i’m not a christian I do share your acknowledgment of spiritual reality. I just think that in doing this, we should be aware of, and more open minded to, the existence, internal validity, and value of other knowledge systems.
To make hard and fast statements about the validity of so many things surely must imply that you are extremely well read, however judging by what you have said in this blog, it is apparent to me that your understanding is insular, prejudicial, uninformed and limited by your own incapacity to think clearly. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but that’s all it is … your opinion! One could discredit most of your musings with some sound common sense, but I suspect that with such fixed ideas, you would never be able to comprehend or wish to comprehend the notion that there are things in this world that would shock your sensibilities. This is what happens when one closes the mind, the heart and the will … to Truth.
Sue,
If you’d like to have a conversation, let’s have it. If you’re content to simply call me stupid… well, congrats.
I did not call you ’stupid’ and I do not wish to have a conversation with you except to say that each and everyone of us feels that their opinion is valid, has worth and considers that opinion to be correct and which can also be proven with sound argument. It is for this reason that a conversation with you would prove fruitless (from my perspective) because you already believe that your ‘opinions’ are more worthy than another. Your one-sided bias is fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions and I have neither the time or inclination to discuss or dissuade. I happen to stumble on this blog whilst searching some data on Homoeopathy. I can only offer a clue as to some recommended literature .. Goethe’s Faust?!
Cheers ..
Sue,
You don’t feel your opinion is valid, though, right? You don’t think your opinions are more worthy than mine? Hogwash. This isn’t about opinions – it’s about objective reality. Either the law of similars works and is scientifically valid, or it is not. Either physical illnesses are caused by energy maladjustments along one’s “vital force”, or they are not.