Catholics feel less pain

[zooterkin]

According a report in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/01/medicalresearch.humanbehaviour):
Brain scans of volunteers who were subjected to electrical shocks revealed that Roman Catholics felt less pain than atheists and agnostics when they were shown a painting of the Virgin Mary.
...
"The Roman Catholics engaged a brain mechanism that is well known from research into the placebo effect, analgesia and emotional disengagement," said Wiech. "It helps people to reinterpret pain, and make it less threatening. These people felt safe by looking at the Virgin Mary, they felt looked after, so the whole context of the test changed for them."

It is highly likely that non-religious people could achieve a similar ability to control pain, perhaps through meditation or other mental strategies. "There's no suggestion that this effect is specific to religion and we've not found the God blob in the brain. This is about the state of mind you can achieve," said Wiech.


How long before we see this cherry-picked in support of religion, I wonder? Does it work if the picture is of someone other than the Virgin Mary, but you're told that's who it is? (Leaving aside the fact that no picture is going to be a true representation of the woman anyway.)

[AkuManiMani]

According a report in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/01/medicalresearch.humanbehaviour):



How long before we see this cherry-picked in support of religion, I wonder? Does it work if the picture is of someone other than the Virgin Mary, but you're told that's who it is? (Leaving aside the fact that no picture is going to be a true representation of the woman anyway.)

I don't think the historical accuracy of the picture has any bearing on the viewer's perception of it as such. It doesn't seem that the article is claiming that pictures of the Madonna have some kind of magical pain suppressing properties -- just that people believing it does has a significant placebo effect.

[seayakin]

Would believers feel more pain if it were a playboy centerfold? ;) On a more serious note, I wonder if people who were raised catholic but now agnostic or atheist would have the same experience as believers? (As someone who was raised a strict catholic, there is still something culturally comforting about some of the catholic iconography partly because my experiences were positive. However, despite this, I cannot rationally accept their beliefs.)

[Scazon]

So it's quite humane to burn them :)

[epeos76]

I'll help you out there, zooterkin. Is this evidence that pictures of the virgin Mary have supernatural effects? Nope. Is it a reason to take seriously claims by religious people that religious beliefs are more than mere delusion? Certainly.

This and other findings support the ancetodal accounts of believers who claim that religious belief and practice have effects that are both real and beneficial. IMO that is enough to justify an instrumentalist approach to religion. At the very least, it suggests religion deserves a better analysis than bare dismissal as an infection by parasitic memes.

The article said that this effect can be duplicated by non-religious means. Great. Someone will have to figure out how to do that, and provide widespread training in those techniques before it provides grounds to claim the religious method is obsolete.

[Silentknight]

According a report in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/01/medicalresearch.humanbehaviour):
Brain scans of volunteers who were subjected to electrical shocks revealed that Roman Catholics felt less pain than atheists and agnostics when they were shown a painting of the Virgin Mary.
...
"The Roman Catholics engaged a brain mechanism that is well known from research into the placebo effect, analgesia and emotional disengagement," said Wiech. "It helps people to reinterpret pain, and make it less threatening. These people felt safe by looking at the Virgin Mary, they felt looked after, so the whole context of the test changed for them."

It is highly likely that non-religious people could achieve a similar ability to control pain, perhaps through meditation or other mental strategies. "There's no suggestion that this effect is specific to religion and we've not found the God blob in the brain. This is about the state of mind you can achieve," said Wiech.


How long before we see this cherry-picked in support of religion, I wonder? Does it work if the picture is of someone other than the Virgin Mary, but you're told that's who it is? (Leaving aside the fact that no picture is going to be a true representation of the woman anyway.)
That's because they didn't offer the agnostics or atheists images of their own religious icons, such as Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins. Everyone knows we worship those people, after all. It's so unfair. :mad:

[epeos76]

^^

You should be so lucky. I doubt you're young enough or hawt enough to be a Dawkins worshiper.

The effect of a comforting, non-religious figure is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to know, though. I guess the article doesn't actually say much about the relative magnitude of the effect.

[petra10]

Show me a picture of Johnny Depp and I would feel no pain :D

[KingMerv00]

According a report in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/01/medicalresearch.humanbehaviour):



How long before we see this cherry-picked in support of religion, I wonder? Does it work if the picture is of someone other than the Virgin Mary, but you're told that's who it is? (Leaving aside the fact that no picture is going to be a true representation of the woman anyway.)

Heh, well Catholics feel less pleasure too. :D

[NobbyNobbs]

They shold have shown the atheists pictures of their grandmothers, or a warm cozy bed, or something that represented "safety" to them. I'll bet that if they did, they would have gotetn the same results as showing the Madonna to the Catholics.

[learner]

Should try hitting them harder. :boggled:

[Elizabeth I]

Show me a picture of Johnny Depp and I would feel no pain :D

Colin Firth for me. MMM, Colin Firth!

My mother-in-law had a saying that seems to fit these data: No sense, no feelings.

[jadey]

I was brought up Catholic and have been an aspiring atheist for the past thirty years. I personally find these Catholic icons to be a bit nauseating, and (to my supreme annoyance) still mildly guilt-inducing. I'm guessing that I would experience more pain when subjected to the Virgin Mary. Elle McPherson, on the otherhand ... less pain ... same guilt ... but in a good way :blush:

[leon_heller]

Members of the Catholic Opus Dei organisation go in for self-mortification and wear a spiky thing on their thigh so that they can inflict pain on themselves. They'd probably enjoy getting electric shocks.:)

I was brought up as a Catholic as well. I saw the light and became a devout atheist when I was 16.

Leon

[a_unique_person]

It's all very strange, since no one even knows what the Virgin Mary looked like. Or even if she was a Virgin. Or even if she existed. My recollection is that for someone who should have had olive skin, she was very pale.

[leon_heller]

She was also born without original sin, so she didn't need to be baptised, and was assumed directly into heaven without having to spend time in Purgatory. I think I've got that right.

I must have been well-indoctrinated, being able to remember the Catechism like that after 55 years. :)

Leon

[Silentknight]

^^

You should be so lucky. I doubt you're young enough or hawt enough to be a Dawkins worshiper.

Actually, to be quite honest, I don't think there's sufficient evidence that Richard Dawkins exists, therefore the reasonable thing to do is reject any belief in him.

[jadey]

I was brought up as a Catholic as well. I saw the light and became a devout atheist when I was 16.

More power to you for making the quick switch. I was having issues by about 12 or 14, but found it very difficult to get past the "or suffer eternal damnation" clause (that's a real doozy - scary as $h!t). Couldn't really call myself an atheist for about a decade or more. De-programming is a b!tch.

[jadey]

Actually, to be quite honest, I don't think there's sufficient evidence that Richard Dawkins exists, therefore the reasonable thing to do is reject any belief in him.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm reading his book. He MUST exist.

[normdoering]

Would believers feel more pain if it were a playboy centerfold?

I think I would feel less pain, as a horny atheist, if I were looking at a playboy centerfold.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

[learner]

Don't be ridiculous. I'm reading his book. He MUST exist.

But that was ghost written. It must have been, because he doesnt exist.

[Brian-M]

The article said that this effect can be duplicated by non-religious means. Great. Someone will have to figure out how to do that, and provide widespread training in those techniques before it provides grounds to claim the religious method is obsolete.


Already been done. Just hand out a placebo, and convince the recipient it's really a painkiller. Homeopaths have been doing it for decades. :)

[epeos76]

Actually, to be quite honest, I don't think there's sufficient evidence that Richard Dawkins exists, therefore the reasonable thing to do is reject any belief in him.


Tommyrot. I



Loved those videos.

[Nogbad]

Taught by nuns = inured to pain.

[epeos76]

Already been done. Just hand out a placebo, and convince the recipient it's really a painkiller. Homeopaths have been doing it for decades. :)


This isn't really a specific enough comparison to be useful, IMO. Consistency? Magnitude? Mechanism? Safety? If religion is a kind of placebo, it would at least appear to be efficient.

More importantly, at least to me, is the evidence that believers really do observe benefits caused in some way by their religious beliefs. Whether, as with a placebo, believers are wrong about how those benefits are created is a profitable question, but appears somewhat irrelevant in practice unless there is an equally effective alternative.