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

Modesty in the Organ of Conviction

I have been reading John Piper’s Battling Unbelief for a small group Bible study. In the chapter on pride, Piper quotes G.K. Chesterton:

“What we suffer from… is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction.”

This was a great comfort to me. Those of us concerned with discernment and sound doctrine within the Church are often accused of being prideful, haughty, having a Jezebel spirit, etc. Because I recognize that I am not perfect, and do not have everything figured out, I occasionally wonder if they aren’t right. Am I just a self-righteous, know-it-all, prig?

While I have certainly been guilty of a youthful priggishness now and again, I do have a sincere concern about the state of Truth in the Church. It is neither immodest nor prideful to have strong convictions. We are to be “stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel…” (Colossians 1:23). This, I believe, implies that there will be those who attempt to shift us from that hope, and furthermore, that they should be resisted. And, of course, Jude urges us to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3). John MacArthur recently wrote an entire book ( The Truth War) premised on this verse. He makes a very compelling argument that the Christian has an obligation to stand for truth and against error.

Modesty in the organ of conviction is not a virtue; it is willful ignorance. And a willful ignorance on matters of faith is, in my view, a sinful ignorance.

(I believe this misplaced modesty is very much related to the postmodernization of the Church. I will post something on this soon.)

 

Evolution is Not Stupid

Tim Challies recently wrote a very good post critiquing the logical conclusions of Darwinism as a comprehensive worldview. He discusses an article in Psychology Today on evolutionary psychology. Challies compellingly argues that the holistic worldview offered by Darwinsm is empty and often rather silly.

I would like to contrast this article with the very typical Christian responses to evolutionary theory: “That’s stupid! You must really be an idiot if you believe that humans evolved from monkeys!” This is not a good argument. It convinces no one, and makes the Christian look like an arrogant dope.

Exhibit 1: Dr. Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino)

.

.

.

Yeah… I can see that.

A few years back, I was invited by an unbelieving friend to attend a Creationism/Evolution debate at a local church. (He had heard about the debate on a conservative talk radio program.) I attended the debate with my friend and his believing co-worker. There were three participants in the debate: Hovind, a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) and an atheistic Darwinist. Hugh Hewitt was the moderator.

The OEC was a perfect gentleman. He asked many good questions of his fellow participants. The Darwinist came off a bit smug, though he was definitely in hostile territory. He also asked intelligent questions of the other participants.

The vast majority of the audience was with Hovind. They seemed more interested in seeing Hovind trounce his foes than in actually learning something. And Hovind was more than willing to oblige.

I cannot remember a time when I was more embarrassed to call myself a Christian. Hovind was a complete arse. He had this silly PowerPoint presentation that he blindly plowed through, completely disregarding the challenges of the other two. It seemed as though he had forgotten it was a debate, but instead believed it to be one of his conferences. He repeatedly referred to evolution, in his grating Dixie drawl, as “stupid”, “dumb”, etc. I can still hear him in my head: “Now, that’s the dumbest thing I ever heard!”

I am convinced that Hovind persuaded no one that evening. Personally, my conviction in the YEC position was temporarily weakened, because Hovind failed to even attempt an answer at several very good challenges.

…

Evolution is not stupid. Evolutionists are not stupid. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists have a far better mechanical knowledge and understanding of how this universe operates than I can ever hope to attain. Does this mean they are right about the Big Bang and macro-evolution? No. I am a YEC. However, it is sinfully arrogant and thoughtless to dismiss these people as fools. And this is precisely what Hovind did, and what many Christians do when confronted with evolutionary theory.

Here’s some advice: If you are having a spiritual conversation with an unbeliever, and the topic of evolution arises, DON’T dismiss the theory and its adherents out of hand. Feel free to offer the watchmaker argument. If you must, try the banana argument. (On second thought, don’t. It’s a terrible argument.) If those fail, and you have nothing left - don’t sweat it. It is possible to accept Darwinism and be saved. It’s not a deal-killer. Darwinism is not the unforgivable sin.

I have seen too many evangelists get hung up on this issue. I have seen too many Christians get in way over their head and look foolish. Darwinism does not keep sinners out of heaven. Sin, rebellion, pride… a hard heart does that.

…

I recently found this YouTube clip of Hovind and Ali G. I soiled myself.

Fit (Unvaccinated) Bodies, Fat Minds?

There is a growing segment of the population that questions the usefulness of vaccinations/immunizations. (A frighteningly large number flat-out deny it and, furthermore, claim vaccinations to be the hidden cause of innumerable modern maladies.) I first encountered this movement a few years back and, because the Mrs. and I were very near the conception of our first child, conducted a fair amount of web-research on the matter.

The anti-vaccination organizations (e.g. National Vaccine Information Center and Vaccine Liberation) are ubiquitous on the world-wide-web. It is actually a very impressive on-line network. Unfortunately, they make statements like, “It is unclear what impact, if any, that vaccines had on 19th and 20th century infectious disease declines.” And, “Vaccines Kill and Maim Regularly…” Or, even more shockingly stupid, “Many infants who suffer the so-called ’shaken baby syndrome’ may be victims of undiagnosed vaccine damage.“

My aim here is not to debate the usefulness of vaccinations. This seems to me about as worthwhile a debate as this one. I don’t have the time or patience to persuade all the General Jack D. Rippers out there that fluoridation (or, in this instance, vaccination) is not a Commie plot to mess with their precious bodily fluids.

(An example of how bizarre and irrational some of the “thinking” on this subject is, see this site. The authors claim that vaccination is the “Vatican’s Medical Inquisition”. They also believe the universe is geocentric.)

While seeping myself in the nonsense of this movement, I noticed many of its adherents were professing believers. Since then, I have met a number of seemingly reasonable, decent, godly Christians who, to varying degrees, accept this hokum. My question for this post is: Why? We are all prone to believing certain silly things. But what causes 21^st Century Christians to be particularly susceptible to these kinds of anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, sillinesses?

…

A few years ago, I read Os Guinness’ Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to Do About It. He confirmed and put to words what I had sensed for some time: many Christians seem to have abdicated all responsibility (and desire) to think deeply and rationally about… everything.

I believe the seeming prevalence of anti-vaccinationism among Christians is related to this broader anti-intellectualism. Many of us have become accustomed to viewing science as the modern enemy of Christian faith. We tend to prejudice ourselves in favor of any claim that appears to contradict the scientific/medical establishment. To an extent, I understand and sympathize with this bias - this is the same establishment that has given us evolution and global warming.

However, in the case of vaccinations, these matters are entirely provable. While scientists will never be able to reproduce the Big Bang, or definitively demonstrate that your Excursion is warming the planet, they can and have tested the effectiveness of vaccinations. Modern immunization programs are truly a medical miracle - I thank God for the undeserved mercies that have been brought to us by diligent scientists and medical professionals all around the world. To refuse to see this is, in my opinion, a stupendous ingratitude.

…

Interestingly, some Christians seem to view vaccination as a Sovereignty of God issue. If God holds every molecule of the universe together, then I shouldn’t fret about measles or polio. Within this view, there seems also to be the notion that pain avoidance is bad, or at least immature. God uses suffering to mold and shape us; therefore suffering should not be avoided. As a Reformed Baptist, I agree that God is sovereign and that He allows suffering into our lives for good purposes. However, I don’t follow the logic here regarding vaccination. Sanitation and modern hygienic practices alleviate untold sufferings. Though, I don’t see anyone forgoing toilets or hand-washing.

There is nothing ungodly in allowing oneself to benefit from technology. God, in His omnipotent sovereignty, will not be hindered in bringing hardship to us by running water and vaccinations.

…

I know this post will likely peeve a lot of folks out there. Honestly, my intention is not to offend or injure. I mean to ask a sincere question and challenge believers to think critically and rationally about these matters. I believe the name and fame of Christ are blemished when professing Christians uncritically embrace irrationality with a near religious zeal.

- Jim B.