By Alfred A. Barrios, Ph.D.
There are many who believe that science and religion are antithetical,
at opposite ends; that one contradicts the other. This paper is
presented to show not only that this need not be so but that in
fact science can actually be used to support many religious beliefs
and phenomena that have heretofore been scoffed at by many. As
a result, it is hoped not only that many former atheists and agnostics
will now also be able to derive the benefits of religion but that
religion too will as a result learn additional ways of being more
effective.
I feel that a major cause of the rift between science and
religion has been that in the past religion has relied heavily on
super-natural (beyond the laws of nature) explanations for religious
phenomena. But it is the contention of this paper that it is no
longer necessary to do so; that there is now more than sufficient
logical and scientific support for these phenomena so that we no
longer need to rely on the super-natural explanations; that we no
longer need to simply accept things on faith alone. Yes, many of
these phenomena can be considered super-normal or extra-ordinary
in the sense that they are definitely not your average everyday
occurrences, but this does not mean that they have to thus be considered
super-natural. In support of this contention, this paper
will attempt to present the logical, rational or scientific support
for a number of key religious concepts and phenomena one by one.
This will be done by logically and rationally answering a number
of questions that have heretofore been thought by many to be impossible
to answer in this way. This includes the following questions:
To begin with, before any such question of whether there is a God can
be answered, it would be helpful if we first provide a definition of
what we mean by God. I feel the following definition is one most people
would accept: God can be defined as a concept made up of three major
components. Or to put it another way, God is a concept made up of three
subconcepts:
A second major benefit is that certain gains can be derived from following
and using these laws as opposed to the pain and suffering that occur
if one goes against them. An example of the former would be learning
how to harness the power of explosions for the benefit (rather than
the destruction) of mankind - as in harnessing the explosion of gasoline
for moving vehicles or the explosion of dynamite for “moving mountains”.
An example of the latter would be the consequences of defying the law
of gravity by jumping out of a tall building. It can also be used to
support such religious contentions as “the wages of sin are death”.
For example, we know that lifestyle sins of excessive drinking, excessive
eating (gluttony), excessive smoking, excessive drug taking, or promiscuity
can lead to serious health problems (such as cirrhosis of the liver,
heart disease, lung cancer and AIDS) and eventual death - by defying
the laws of physiology and pathology.
It could even help to support the contention that God (through His laws
of nature) created the universe. Although we don’t currently know the
exact laws of nature explaining the start of the universe, it does not
mean that such laws do not exist or that we won’t someday know what
these laws are.
This first subconcept of God can be looked upon as where the all-knowing
or omniscient aspect of God Comes from.
(2) The second subconcept of God would be that if you follow a particular
way or ideal guidance in life, you will be more likely to achieve optimum
peace of mind, fulfillment and happiness (heaven) and a minimum of suffering
(hell) in life.
When we have incorporated this way of life into our innermost being,
we can say we have God within us; and when we personify Him and ask
for His help and guidance, we are using a general approach to tapping
into this wisdom, this built-in way of life to find the appropriate
aspect of these teachings to help us with the need at hand. This points
out an important point for insuring that God is with you and
will help you to the fullest - namely, that you should make sure
you are fully aware of all His teachings. To merely pray to God
for His help and guidance without fully knowing or following what God
stands for is not going to help you as much.
This second subconcept of God fits in with that part in the bible -
the 14th chapter, 6th verse of the gospel of John, where Christ is quoted
as saying, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me.”
(3) The third subconcept of God would be that through our strong belief
in God we can have greater control over our destiny. This has to do
with the “higher power” aspect of God. It is through the power of belief
that we can tap into the higher power aspect of God that will in turn
allow us to fully incorporate the guidance aspect of God (“...the way...”).
For most people it is normally very hard to change. The power of belief
facilitates change. The scientific basis of this belief factor and
how it can give us the will or power to control and redirect
(if necessary) our lives so as to achieve optimum happiness and fulfillment
is discussed below in the section on belief.
If one accepts the above three-component definition of God, then when
you say you believe in God, you are essentially saying: that you believe
in the lawfulness of nature; that there is ideal way of life that can
lead to optimum peace of mind and happiness; and that through the power
of belief you can have greater control over your destiny. You are also
saying that if you go against God (i.e., if you go against the laws
of nature, do not try to lead a more ideal way of life, and do not believe
that you can have control over your life), you will suffer the consequences.
The latter
also helps to answer a question often posed by skeptics: If God is
an all-loving God, a benevolent God, then how do you account for all
the pain and suffering in the world? The answer, simply stated, is
that much of the misery in the world is caused when people go against
God (as defined above).
The answer to this question again depends on how you define
God. According to the definition given above, we can say that to the
extent that Christ is “...the way...” (John 14:6), that Christ’s
teachings epitomize the ideal way of leading one’s life, to the extent
that Christ personifies or embodies this concept of God (subconcept
2), Christ then is God.
Even most non-Christians would agree that Christ's basic teachings
are right in line with a philosophy of life for helping one achieve
self-actualization - the highest levels one is capable of. His concepts
of "Ask and ye shall receive"; "Seek and ye shall find";
and "Believe and all things are possible" are a truly powerful
means for helping one break free of negative programming and producing
positive changes. And His focus on looking for the good in others,
looking for the good in ourselves, looking for the good after a tragic
situation, learning from our mistakes, being able to admit our faults,
etc. are part of a set of positive attitudes towards oneself, others
and life aimed at helping people achieve optimum peace of mind, fulfillment
and happiness. To the extent that these teachings are ideal, Christ
would then personify God.
Obviously, the same approach could be used to determine if Mohammed
or Moses or Buddha or... were God or personified God. The obvious question
is how would one determine which of the above mentioned great beings’
teachings was closest to being the ideal; i.e. which one of the above
beings was closest to personifying the true God? This question can
best be answered by following the suggestions given in the section
below entitled “Can Some Religions Be More Effective Than Others and
How Can We Measure This?”
I feel that religion is made up of three basic components: an anti-chaos
or order-to-the-universe factor; a guidance factor; and a belief factor.
And the three main functions of religion are to provide: (1) answers
to allay fears of the unknown; (2) guidance or a way of achieving
optimum peace of mind and happiness; and (3) ways of building belief.
I would define belief as a state of mind, usually evoked by words,
whereby there is concentration on a thought to the exclusion of any
thoughts or sensory stimuli that would contradict that thought. This
definition of belief allows you to more readily see the reality of belief
in terms of: how it can affect behavior; how it can directly affect
the body; and why and how this effect can be so powerful.
The two major components of belief are: (a) the thought focused
on along with the response connected to the thought; and (b) the inhibitory
set inhibiting any stimuli (both cognitive and sensory) capable of interfering
with the response to the thought. The stronger one believes, the stronger
will be the inhibitory set blocking any interference and thus the stronger
the response to that thought. In support of this contention see the
sections on belief in B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior
(1957, pp. 159, 160 & 366) and suggestion in Pavlov’s Conditioned
Reflexes (1927, p. 407).
To verify the reality of belief, then, we would first have to
confirm that thoughts can automatically evoke actual responses. Pavlov
was perhaps the first to shed light on this area when he spoke of the
potential of words and thoughts to evoke responses as a result of previous
conditioning or association:
An obvious example of this is the effect a word or thought like
“lemon” can have. If someone were to suggest to you thoughts of biting
into a sour, tart and tangy lemon, you might find yourself quickly starting
to salivate. This, because the word or thought “lemon” through previous
association with the natural salivary response to biting into a lemon
becomes a conditioned stimulus able to evoke the same salivary response.
And the stronger you believed you were actually biting into a lemon,
the more focused you would be on the thought and the more likely you
would be to start salivating. (See also the chapter “Belief becomes
biology in Cousin’s book Head First: The Biology of Hope, 1989.)
The second component of belief that needs to be verified is the inhibitory
set aspect. Since belief can be looked upon as one way of focusing
attention on a particular thought, one area that can provide such support
is the area of the neurophysiology of attention and the work of such
pioneers as Hernandez-Peon (1959). The latter has shown that when an
organism is attentive to one stimulus (thoughts can be looked upon as
cognitive stimuli), other stimuli impinging on it tend to be inhibited.
And the more focused the attention, the stronger the inhibitory set.
The converse would of course also be true – the stronger the inhibitory
set, the more focused the attention (and reaction) to the stimulus.
Work in the area of hypnosis and suggestion can also be used to support
the concept of an inhibitory set aspect to belief. The concepts of
hypnosis, suggestion and belief are all closely related:
Suggestion
can be defined as a verbal means of evoking a belief in a person.
Lindzey (1954, p. 27), in summarizing a number of definitions of
suggestion, states:
Barrios (2001) defines hypnosis as a heightened state of suggestibility
(or belief) resulting from a heightened inhibitory set produced by the
hypnotic induction. To get some idea of how strong this inhibitory
set can be, one need only look at studies summarizing the effectiveness
of the use of hypnosis in surgery. Under hypnosis, suggestions of
anesthesia lead to such strong inhibition of pain stimuli that even
amputations can be conducted without a pain response (Kroger, 1977.
p.212).
As Pavlov puts it, in the state of heightened belief produced by hypnosis,
a suggestion
To fully appreciate how much stronger the response to verbal stimuli
can be in a heightened state of belief as a result of the strong inhibitory
set, perhaps it might be useful to use an analogy or two:
Studies on the placebo response (which is based on the power of belief
or expectation) also support a strong inhibitory set component. Take
for instance the study of Dr. Stewart Wolf (1950) of women who endured
persistent nausea and vomiting during pregnancy:
There are actually two ways that belief can play a part in affecting
behavior. In addition to intensifying the response to a particular
thought at any given point in time it can also play a key role in facilitating
the programming in (conditioning in) of a new positive behavior that
will now automatically occur in all future relevant situations. It
facilitates such reprogramming by blocking out, at the time of the new
imprinting, any interference from previously programmed contradictory
negative behavior (thanks to the inhibitory set component of belief).
In support of this see Pavlov (1927, p. 407):
We know that it is possible to condition in new behavior by means of
words. As pointed out by Barrios (2001), Mowrer’s theoretical formulations
on the sentence as a conditioning device (1960, pp. 141, 147-150) tend
to support this contention. However, what often keeps us from programming
in the new behavior is the ever presence of the old behavior (the old
programming). In order to condition in the new behavior effectively
we must be able to block out the old long enough to establish a strong
new connection. Thus we can see how the inhibitory set component of
belief can play a key role here.
Looking at belief in this new light can also help us to better
understand the concept of exorcising (blocking out) of the demons
or the devil (negative programming) within us and the role that
belief can play.
Another way to appreciate the key part belief can play in affecting
our lives is to realize how difficult it usually is for most people
to change their negative ways. How often don’t we see good advice simply
go in one ear and out the other. Most people do not seem to have the
will to change. It seems that although we have learned a great
deal about how to program and re-program computers, when it comes to
reprogramming the main computer - the human mind - most people are still
in the dark. Seeing the mechanisms whereby belief facilitates reprogramming
can now show us the way out of the dark. (See next section for how
belief plays a key role in giving one greater free will.)
This also helps us to more fully understand the far-reaching
and in-depth changes that can often be produced (almost instantaneously)
by “a religious experience”; how it can indeed be possible to be reborn
or born again as a result of such an intense heightened-belief
experience.
Now
we come to the question of the purpose of the belief factor in religion
or faith. It is felt that the purpose of belief here is as a means
of giving us greater control over our destiny, in facilitating the
programming in of the guidance factor by blocking interference from
any previous negative programming. (Faith can thus be defined as
“guided” belief). The guidance factor, as pointed out above would
include a set of thoughts and beliefs aimed at helping you achieve
optimum peace of mind, happiness and fulfillment in life. The more
strongly you believe in this way of life, the more focused your mind
will be on, and therefore the more likely you are to bring about,
the fulfillment (the programming in) of these guiding thoughts.
Free will implies that we have control over our own destiny.
The question of whether there is free will or not has been posed by
the great philosophers down through the centuries. But to my knowledge
this question has never been fully answered. Many of the religious
tell us that of course we have free will; God has given us the choice
between good and evil, between misery and happiness. But then the realists
point to all the miserable people in the world and say: "Are we
to believe that these people have freely chosen to be miserable?"
Is there free will or not? In order to answer this question, again
we need to first define our terms.
Towards Greater Freedom And Happiness
(Barrios, 1985, p.16) free will is defined as the ability to transcend
one's automatic side by means of inner speech or thought, the ability
to make choices based on reasoning rather than emotions, the ability
to change negative habits, attitudes and beliefs (one's negative programming)
by focusing sufficiently on the appropriate thought. The key words
here are "by focusing sufficiently on the appropriate thought."
Not all people have developed the ability to focus sufficiently on the
appropriate thought when they wish to. Very often, conflicting and
opposite thoughts interfere and do not allow the full positive response.
From this definition of free will we can see that the answer
to the question of whether there is free will or not is that all humans
have the potential for free will (because all humans have the
potential to respond to words and thoughts) but not everyone has fully
developed this potential.]
This is why the belief factor is so important in helping to effectively
program in the positive guidance factor. Belief is the key to allowing
an individual to more fully tap into his free will potential. Remember,
the definition of belief used herein is: concentration on a thought
to the exclusion of anything that would contradict that thought. Thus,
the stronger we believe that something will happen, the more focused
we are on that thought to the exclusion of any contradictory thoughts
and therefore the stronger our will to bring about this happening -
even in the face of negative programming (negative contradictory thoughts).
Those among you who are adherents of Determinism need
not feel that this approach to free will contradicts your beliefs -
if you define determinism as the lawfulness of nature rather than the
opposite of free will as some mistakenly do.
What is the opposite of free will is the concept of fatalism.
If you believe that your life in preordained or predestined and that
you cannot change it from that, you are a fatalist and do not believe
in free will. The question we wish to answer now is are some aspects
of religion fatalistic?
One example that comes to mind is the use of the following
thoughts when something tragic has happened: "It is (or was) God's
will" or "We must learn to accept God's will, that no
matter how tragic a situation is, it fits into God's overall plan for
you." Some people may interpret this as being fatalistic but it
does not have to be so. I feel that what people could be saying here
is that no matter how tragic a situation is, you can always find something
good that may come from it if you follow God's way - a sort of "always
look for the silver lining" philosophy.
The
bottom line here is that any religion that believes in the concept
of free will is by definition non-fatalistic. They can be deterministic
in the sense of believing in the lawfulness of nature but at the same
time believing that we can to a considerable extent control our own
destiny.
Is Religion Needed?
Based
on the above, we can now answer the question of whether religion is
needed. We can see that people can definitely benefit from religion
in that we can all benefit from (a) allaying our fears of the unknown
as well as getting (b) positive guidance and (c) ways of increasing
the belief factor so as to better absorb into our lives this positive
guidance and thus be able to achieve optimum peace of mind, fulfillment
and happiness.
It
should be made clear here that when we refer to achieving happiness,
we do not mean simply satisfaction of immediate desires without regard
to the possible negative consequences for yourself and others. For
example, constant play and no work could deny us the satisfaction
of long range goals, and of course stealing and killing to
achieve our ends can definitely be detrimental to others. This type
of behavior would of course be considered negative and the programming
in those of us who are prone to such purely self-centered behavior
could be described as the devil in us. Also, such purely self-centered
behavior would deny us the vast sources of satisfaction that can come
from doing things for others, from being brotherly (from being
altruistic).
What Is The Basis of Altruism?
It would seem that a major part of the guidance factor in many
religions is the concept of altruism. “Love thy neighbor.” “Love thine
enemies”. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. These
are all examples of this concept of altruism as part of religion. The
question is, is there any rational basis for this type of behavior?
I feel that the basis of altruism (as well as the concept of
oneness) is the fact that all humans (and perhaps to a limited extent
some other living creatures as well) have the ability to imagine and
thus have the ability to place themselves in another person’s (or other
living creature’s) shoes. Consequently, when we do something for another
living creature, we know how we would feel if someone did the same for
us, and we can vicariously share the relief of pain, the satisfaction
or the happiness this creature experiences as a result. And the more
others we can help, the more vicarious pleasures we can derive. Also,
we can see from this definition of altruism that the motivation to help
others does not have to come from the quid pro quo rewards from such
behaviors (such as getting something in return; or being praised for
being good; or even increasing one’s chances of going to heaven, etc.,
which of course could be icing on the cake) but because of the direct
vicarious satisfaction derived therefrom. As put by S.D. Luzzato, a
rabbinical scholar over a century ago, the quality of compassion “is
the root of love and kindness and righteousness; and it alone brings
us to the doing of good deeds without ulterior motives.” (Donin,
1991, p. 43, italics added.) All this can also help us to understand
the concept of unconditional love.
To verify the concept that altruistic behavior is directly
satisfying, one could conceivably use brain imaging techniques (e.g.
Nash, 1997) to measure dopamine activity (a direct measure of pleasure
derived) during altruistic behavior. Amount of dopamine activity could
then also be compared to self-report measures of direct satisfaction.
What Is The Purpose Of Life?
Many feel that the purpose of life is to serve or devote oneself to God.
If this can be interpreted as meaning to follow God’s way through
life, I couldn’t agree more, since following God’s way according
to the definition given above will result in optimum fulfillment
and happiness.
This certainly seems to follow from Christ’s own words: “I have
come that they may have life and have it to the full” (The Bible,
John 10:10). And I wouldn’t be surprised if it would also be compatible
with the teachings of other great religions.
One can thus say that the purpose of life is to live life in
such a way that you live life to the fullest; that you bring out all
your God-given potential to the fullest so as to get the most out of
life, including and especially the vicarious satisfaction that comes
from giving to others.
Unfortunately, there are some who feel that the purpose of life
is to lead an entirely selfless, self-denying life completely
dedicated to doing things for others, never thinking of one’s own
needs or desires. The ideal, however, I feel is to establish a nice
balance between the satisfaction that comes from doing things for others
with the filling of one’s own needs and desires. (See the chapter on
happiness in Towards Greater Freedom and Happiness, Barrios,
1985.)
To carry the idea of doing things for others to the point of
being totally self-denying would, I feel, be actually going against
God’s way, not only denying ourselves additional sources of fulfillment
and happiness but also in the long run lessening the amount we can give
to others. [As an extreme example, it would obviously be self-defeating
if you were so all-giving that you gave all your food to the
hungry. In so doing, by eventually starving yourself to death or by
being so hungry all the time as to be in a poor state of health and
mind, you obviously would not be able to give as much to others in the
long run. There are some who feel that being too selfless can even
lead to suppression of the immune system and predispose one to cancer
(e.g., see Temoshok, 1993, pp. 76, 77, & 361)] On the other hand,
if you also spend some time on yourself, on developing your full potential
while satisfying your own needs and desires, you will have that much
more to give to others, to share with others in the long run. The happier
and more fulfilled you are, the happier and more fulfilled you can help
make others.
Can There Be False or Dangerous Religions?
To the extent that the guidance factor could be "mis-guided",
some (false) religions could actually be harmful. Certain recent
dangerous cults could be looked upon in this way (e.g., the Jim Jones
cult in British Guiana or Marshal Applewhite's Heavensgate cult in
San Diego, which led to the untimely death of many of their followers).
The Aryan supremacy cult of Hitler would of course be the most
obvious example of how much damage can be done by such cults. Hitler's
ideology certainly had a very powerful belief factor empowering it but
it was obviously guided in the wrong direction teaching for instance
that Aryans were the superior race and other “inferior” races, such
as the Jews, should be eliminated. This shows that a strong belief
factor alone does not make for a good religion.
It also makes it clear that helping people develop mind-power
alone is not enough. The recent New Age movement has focused heavily
on developing the power of the mind - to achieve health, wealth and
happiness - and there are many in the religious community who have voiced
their fears of such a movement. And understandably so, for to the extent
that this mind power may not have sufficient positive guidance coupled
with it, it could produce negative results.
Can Some Religions Be More Effective Than
Others & How Can We Measure This?
If the ultimate goal of religion is to help us achieve greater peace
of mind and happiness in life, then whatever means can be used to
measure these results either directly or indirectly can be
used to determine the relative effectiveness of each religion. Towards
the end of directly measuring these results we could, for example,
use certain measures of peace of mind and happiness, perhaps in the
form of certain questionnaire-type tests and/or certain physiological
measures of anxiety and depression.
One major indirect measure of the effectiveness of a religion
would be the overall health and length of life of the individuals in
the religious group since it has now been scientifically shown that
a person's state of mind and lifestyle (level of stress, depression,
bad habits) can play a major factor in health and disease. (See for
instance Head First: The Biology of Hope by Norman Cousins, 1989.)
Another factor to be considered in determining overall effectiveness
of the religion would of course be the number of people that can be
reached and benefited by it. This could be influenced greatly by its
methods of building the belief factor as well as the scope and depth
of its guidance factor. For instance, if the religion relies too heavily
on super-natural explanations for building the belief factor, it could
turn off and consequently not be able to reach individuals who strongly
believe in the lawfulness of nature aspect of God.
Also,
a religion is more likely to be effective if it is also open to systematic
scientific or rational ways of (a) increasing and using the belief
factor (e.g. see the SPC techniques in Chapter III of Towards Greater
Freedom and Happiness, Barrios, 1985) as well as (b) further elucidating
and expanding the guidance factor.
Is Faith Healing Real?
Many studies in recent years have shown that a person’s state
of mind and lifestyle can definitely play a key role in determining
his or her state of health. We know that excess stress (or more correctly,
one’s inability to deal with excess stress) can eventually lead to such
diseases as stroke and heart disease by causing high blood pressure
and cholesterol buildup in the arteries. (See book Type A Behavior
and Your Heart by Meyer Friedman, 1974 pp 75-83 & 120-121.)
And as mentioned above, certain negative lifestyle habits such as
excessive drinking, eating, smoking, etc. can eventually lead to disease
and death. We also know that certain negative mental factors (such as
hopelessness and inability to express one’s feelings and needs) can
suppress the immune system sufficiently to make a person more susceptible
to such diseases as cancer. Evidence in support of this can be found in
the book The Type C Connection: The Mind Body Link to Cancer and Your
Health by Temoshok, 1993, pp. 136-138 and pp 202-209. See also
the studies of Glaser & Glaser, et al; Levy & Heberman; and
Stein, Schleifer & Keller regarding the direct suppressive effects
on the immune system by mental states of depression and hopelessness
as reported in Norman Cousins’ book Head First: the Biology of Hope,
1989, pp. 39 & 85. Two other studies by the Glasers, also reported
in Cousins’ book - pp. 39 & 40, indicated the enhancement of positive
emotions can have the effect of boosting immunity.
If we accept the fact that a person’s state of mind and lifestyle
can play a significant role in affecting the body, then it should
be obvious that anything that can play a major role in affecting the
mind, such as belief and faith, could be a major factor
in affecting health and well being.
Evidence of the power of belief to affect the body healthwise can be
found in many studies on the power of the placebo (see for instance
the book Timeless Healing: The Power and Biology of Belief, 1996,
by Herbert Benson and the section on placebos in Cousins book Head
First, pp. 229-232.) Dramatic effects of the power of the placebo
on the body were presented above in the section on belief. One classic
study showing how the placebo can affect the body was the study reported
in Levine (1978) where an expectation or belief that a certain injection
would relieve pain led to a release of endorphins (natural pain killers
produced by the body) into the bloodstream. This even though unbeknownst
to the patient, the injection was merely saline solution.
However, there is something that needs to be made clear. Although
strong belief of being healed can be very effective in producing at
least temporary improvement in one's health (by allowing for a stronger
immune response and creating greater peace of mind at least for the
moment), in order for this temporary improvement to remain permanent,
the belief factor must also be used to help fully absorb the guidance
factor so that the immuno-suppressive psychological factors can be more
likely to be permanently removed (see Barrios, 1985, pp. 124
& 125). Thus we can see that one way of differentiating between
the concept of belief and the concept of faith is to point out
that faith usually means “guided” belief or belief in a certain
way of life. When we say that a person's faith healed him, we are
saying more than just that the belief he would get well was what got
and kept him well. It was his belief plus the positive
permanent changes in his state of mind and lifestyle produced by following
the new guidelines for living which he incorporated through his new
found or re-strengthened faith.
One way of determining how much more effective faith is than
belief alone in affecting permanent healing would be to do a thorough
search of the placebo literature or to do further studies on the placebo
to determine whether the positive effects of the placebo (or belief
alone) are long lasting if there were no significant lifestyle changes
also taking place.
This basic idea that belief alone is not as effective for insuring
permanent healing to take place as when the belief is also used to bring
about positive lifestyle changes is illustrated when the case of Jolee
Marshall is contrasted with some of the other cancer patients I have
worked with:
Jolee Marshall:
After a very strong emotional upheaval,
Jolee had developed an inoperable cancerous tumor of the intestines
and had been given two weeks to live. I worked with her for a period
of four hours [with the hypnotic belief-building and imaging techniques
section of the self-programmed control-psychoneurourimmunological (SPC-PNI)
approach presented in the chapter on cancer in Towards Greater Freedom
& Happiness (Barrios, 1985)] and left her with a very strong
belief that her body's natural defenses would clear away the tumor.
The tumor did disappear (in fact overnight) much to the astonishment
of her doctor and Jolee did live cancer-free for one more year. However,
upon experiencing another similar emotional upheaval one year after
my first and only session with Jolee, the cancer returned and this time
Jolee soon succumbed to it.
The strong belief that she would be cured was apparently sufficient
to heal her for one year. However, in the case of Jolee, the complete
SPC-PNI approach (which now also includes helping the patient make certain
necessary lifestyle changes) had not been followed. (Unfortunately,
at this point in time I had not fully realized that belief alone was
not enough.) Because of this, there had been no real follow-through
for making the necessary changes in her way of life that could
have helped her more effectively prevent the second, and this time fatal,
emotional upheaval that occurred a year later.
This is in stark contrast to other cancer patients I have worked with
where the more complete SPC-PNI approach was followed. The following
synopses of the approach taken and results achieved with a number of
these patients will give you some idea of the different outcomes that
can be expected when a more complete “faith healing” approach is taken
towards eliminating the contributing psychological factors (hopelessness,
etc.):
Adele Bucanan:
As opposed to just one session with Jolee,
I saw Adele once a week for eight weeks. At the time I first saw her,
Adele, age 45, was suffering from a fast moving cancer of the spine,
lymph glands, the rib cage and the base of the brain - a metastasis
from an original cancer of the breast. (At this point in time the only
treatment she was undergoing was a very low dosage chemotherapy, as
she had had a strong negative reaction to the standard dosage.)
Because of the extended amount of time with Adele, I was not
only able to build up a strong belief in her body's ability to cure
itself of the cancers but through this heightened state of belief I
was also able to bring about some major changes in her way of life.
In particular, she was able to develop a more assertive personality.
This allowed her to break out of the hopeless life situation that had
most likely played a key role in making her more susceptible to cancer
in the first place. She was now able to stand up to her very dominating
and controlling husband. Six months later the cancer had disappeared
in all four areas and three years after that, when last contacted,
Adele was still very much alive.
John Roswick:
John had been given radiation treatment
for cancer of the tongue. However, he refused the recommended follow
up radical surgery. At this point he discovered SPC. The following
letter was written in August of 1985 upon my request for him to summarize
for me what had happened:
August 5, 1985
Dear Dr. Barrios,
Almost 6 years ago on Oct 19, 1979 1 was told I had cancer of
the tongue and had a year or less to live. I hit the bottom of the
pit. I started praying. Knew nothing of God or Jesus, never read the
Bible, but I started. I received 35 massive radiation treatments in
the neck. I said to the doctors “am I healed”. They said we now have
to do surgery. I said What surgery? They were going to take out half
my neck. I said no. I contacted you in the summer of 1980. You agreed
to see me once a week for 8 or 9 weeks, instructed me on SPC techniques
and other counseling on belief and visualization. I used your
garden technique and visualizing myself 'well' on a mountain top.
During my first visit with you, you gave me your book 'Towards Greater
Freedom and Happiness.' You said: you now have two good books (meaning
yours and the Bible) and told me to read them both. I thank God for
you and your book, you strengthened my belief in what Jesus said in
Mark ll:23 ['Believe and all things are possible']
Dr. Barrios, in my opinion your program is bridging the gap between the
mind, and the spirit then the body. Your program SPC was the beginning
in my healing, reinforcing my belief in Jesus teachings, ridding myself
of all pent up fear, especially fear, guilt, doubts, anger, unforgivness,
and a bringing together of the Mind, Spirit and Body.
My saliva returned to me during my sessions with you, my voice,
and I forgot to mention, MY TASTER. [After radiation] I couldn't taste
anything. The doctors said my saliva would never be the same, that
my taster, taste buds, would be about 50 to 75% returned. Well today
I enjoy full saliva, and full tasting abilities I had before radiation.
It is sad to note that medical doctors don't, or won't advise
patients on positive principles laid down in your book or the bible.
I would urge anyone who has an illness of any nature to seek out the
SPC program. It works. It puts you in tune with the real you, the
spirit. It has for me and I know it will for others. I firmly believe
you are an instrument of God's. And I thank him for you. I am not
the same person you first met, frightened, confused, oh yes confused!
My condition is healed. Your holistic approach is a blessing."
Pam Roth:
When I first
started working on Pam’s case, she had just gone through chemotherapy
and radiation for metastatic breast cancer. She was also having great
difficulty breaking free of a 30 year two pack a day cigarette habit.
The following letter (which she wrote on my behalf when I was nominated
in 1996 for the Norman Cousins Award in mind-body health) tells her
story:
June 14, 1996
To Whom It May Concern:
As CEO of P.J. Roth & Associates and President of The Public
Service News Bureau, I have had the honor of knowing Dr. Barrios and
observing his work since 1983.
Through his SPC approach, Dr. Barrios has developed a program
that has allowed people worldwide to tap into their own personal power
to change their health, their happiness and their lives for the better!
He has made the mind/body link accessible and understandable to the
world.
Over the years, I observed the extraordinary development of the
clinical applications of his pioneering theories, and his enormous influence
on the American public. At the same time, I felt it had little to do
with me on a personal level. That is until 1992, when I was diagnosed
with metastasic breast cancer. It was then that Dr. Barrios made the
mind/body link accessible and understandable to me in the most profound
way possible!
In light of my particular case and my prognosis, my physicians
encouraged me to undergo the most strenuous chemotherapy and radiation;
which I did.
At the same time, even faced with my own mortality, I could
not summon up the resources to make necessary changes in my personal
lifestyle. In many ways this was not surprising, after all, I had previously
spent years of therapy unsuccessfully attempting to deal with the underlying
lack of self worth that showed itself in an aggressive disregard of
and for my own physical and emotional well being.
Years of therapy, will power and even cancer seemed to make little
difference to ending my two pack a day habit and a 30 year addiction
to nicotine. None of these could change the stress attached to my particular
career choice or the fact that I had never developed necessary care
and consideration for my physical “self”. I was in trouble and I knew
it. I had tried everything including traditional hypnosis but nothing
seemed to work.
I was depressed, anxious about the cancer that I was sure was
still with me, debilitated by my treatment and more out of touch than
ever with the body that had betrayed me. It was then that Dr. Barrios
stepped back into my life bringing all the benefits of his years of
clinical experience in mind-body health.
Within two sessions, I made the remarkable breakthroughs that years
of therapy and prior hypnosis were unable to achieve! And it was all
so easy. Dr. Barrios’ approach not only convinced me that I had the
power to tap into my own subconscious – it showed me how to use and
apply that power to achieve deep seated change.
Within weeks, through applying these powerful hypnotic and visualization
techniques to my cancer and my personal “mind/body” split – I not only
stopped smoking once and for all, I was transformed into a person in
touch with and caring for her own physical and emotional needs.
Today, I am a committed ex-smoker, who exercises, eats well and
takes care of herself in every way possible. I am also, according
to all tests, “cancer free” [still “free” as of December, 2001]. More
importantly, I intend to give myself every opportunity to stay that
way by continuing to practice the SPC techniques that have made the
difference in my recovery.!
It should be pointed out that I am not the only one to report
such long lasting recoveries from cancer when a more complete “faith
healing” approach is taken. In her book, Temoshok cites numerous cases
of successful cancer cures brought about by her and other researchers
in the field using the more complete healing approach. Take for instance
the story of:
Irwin
Diagnosed initially with testicular cancer, the cancer had eventually
spread to his lymph nodes, chest and lungs. One tumor on his neck had
grown so large he was forced to keep his head at an odd tilt. His doctors
told him that even with the best treatment at the time (a combination
of surgery, radiation, cobalt and nitrogen mustard, which he did undergo)
he had only three to four months to live and that he had zero chance
of survival. At this point he sought the help of a psychotherapist
who used hypnosis along with traditional psychoanalysis. Under hypnosis
he was much more open to healing suggestions aimed at opening up blocks
in his capacity to love and be loved and to work on achieving his long
term life goals. Within six months, he had resolved his love problems
and gotten married and was ordained as an Episcopal priest - a lifelong
goal. On the very day he was ordained “he got the news that his follow-up
x-rays showed no more evidence of cancer. His lymph nodes and lungs
were completely clear. This seeming miracle occurred six months after
his original diagnosis...Today, thirty three hears later, Irwin is
alive, well and cancer-free.” (Temoshok, 1993, p. 320, italics added).
It should be pointed out that my presentation of the above anecdotal
evidence of cancer cures through a form of faith healing is done more
as support for, rather than definitive proof of the ability to cure
cancer by using a mental/spiritual, “faith healing”, approach. For
this definitive proof we will need larger, controlled studies. In such
studies, among other things, all the important variables can be studied
systematically and under scientifically controlled conditions. For
instance, such studies would include accurate and more complete measurements
of how strong the belief factor was and how complete were the necessary
lifestyle changes for each individual case. The latter would I feel
help throw light on the question often posed: “How do you explain counter
anecdotal cases whereby terminally ill patients have tried to pray for
their recovery substantially but to no avail?” One answer to such a
question might be that the degree and length of healing would be directly
correlated to strength of belief and depth of relevant life changes
that took place.
How Does Prayer Work?
One
other concept related to belief and faith is prayer. Prayer can be
defined as a verbal means of delineating the goal you wish to attain
with God's help. For example, the prayer "I pray to God that
He will heal me (or you) of this affliction or illness" clearly
sets out the goal one wishes to attain. Whether this prayer is answered
depends on three things: (1) the strength of the person's belief
(both the person being prayed for and the person doing the praying);
(2) the degree to which the individual subsequently incorporates God
into his life (i.e., incorporates the guidance factor); and (3) the
lawfulness of nature. The latter is important too because prayer
should not go against this aspect of God. It would be wiser for someone
who has lost a limb, rather than praying for another limb, to pray
for the ability to quickly learn how to use an appropriate prosthesis
and for the proper state of mind to not feel inferior for having
a missing limb, etc.
However, one should not be too quick to limit prayer for fear
that one may be asking too much in the sense of thinking that such a
prayer would go against the lawfulness of nature factor. At this point
in time we are not yet fully aware of all the laws of nature. It could
be that on the surface a prayer may be defying the laws of nature; but
it could also be that in the future a law could be discovered to explain
the miracle brought about by such a prayer.
Now, assuming that the goal of the prayer does not go counter
to the laws of nature, how do the belief and guidance factors play a
role in determining whether a prayer will be answered? As pointed out
above in the sections headed "What Is Belief?" and "Is
Faith Healing Real?", belief itself can produce direct effects
by amplifying (focusing) the power of thought to affect the body or
influence behavior. But as was emphasized in these two sections, in
order to sustain the physiological or behavioral changes there
has to also be a permanent change in one's way of life - one's attitudes,
beliefs and life style. In other words, the guidance factor also has
to be incorporated.
There is still the question of whether and how prayer can affect
external factors - factors that we do not have contiguous contact with.
For example in the case of praying for someone else, contiguous contact
would include praying within earshot of that person, or the person listening
to you pray over the phone or radio, or hearing that you had prayed
for him or her. Non-contiguous contact would mean that the person being
prayed for did not consciously know he or she was being prayed for.
Thus, can praying for someone else's healing have any effect
if the person does not know he/she is being prayed for? Or can praying
for rain actually bring about rain? Well, there are two possible ways
prayer could affect such external factors - the direct and indirect
way. In the case of praying for someone unbeknownst to them, the direct
way could involve some form of mental telepathy as a way of reaching
the prayed-for-person's mind. Or in the case of praying for rain, the
direct way could invoke some variation of psychokenesis where the mind
in a highly focused state could cause droplets of rain to form from
the existing moisture in the air - a psychical seeding of rain clouds
so to speak. One can see that the lawfulness of nature aspect would
be a major factor here. (e.g., are mental telepathy and psychokinesis
in tune with the laws of nature?)
It would seem that the more feasible way of prayer affecting external
factors would be the indirect way. For instance, in the case of rain,
the prayer could help come up with new ideas for producing rain such
as the use of iodine particles for actual seeding of rain clouds or
for coming up with the necessary money for seeding, etc. In the case
of the possibility of prayer affecting someone who does not know he/she
is being prayed for, the prayer could help indirectly by helping the
person doing the praying to change in such a way that would have a positive
affect on the person being prayed for.
Is There Life Everlasting?
Adhering
to the lawfulness of nature, we know that all living creatures must
die some day even when following a true religion. So does this mean
that when we die we can no longer have life?
There are many who believe in the existence of a soul that continues
on after corporal death. Here again, although we may not currently
know of any laws of nature to completely support such a contention,
it does not mean that such laws do not exist and won't someday be uncovered.
As a for instance: perhaps the soul could continue to exist in the form
of a unique pattern of energy that is emitted from the body at the time
of death and continues to exist in the universe indefinitely. We know
that the live brain does emit electrical waves that can be picked up
by EEG machines and we know that at least certain energy waves can exist
long after their original source has died (e.g. light, radio and gamma
waves existing for billions of years long after an exploding distant
sun has died). Could it be then that the soul continues to exist after
death in the form of some unique pattern of (electrical or some other
type of) energy?
But even if the above hypothesis is off, there are currently
at least three ways that we know for sure one can live on after death:
For one, we know that the molecules that make up our bodies continue
to exist after we die. They continue to be active and, if allowed to,
will reformulate eventually with other living things. I say "if
allowed to" because there are some forms of burial that can interfere
with the reintegration with other living matter - such as entombment
in a mausoleum.
A second way of living on would be through our progeny - our
genes being passed on from generation to generation.
And finally, we can live on in the thoughts of others. The more
people we have affected and the more deeply, the longer this form of
immortality will last. This, by the way, is one way of interpreting
the resurrection of Christ, one that would not be in conflict with the
lawfulness of nature. He most certainly influenced and continues to
influence deeply a great many people to where, 2000 years later, He
is still very much alive in the thoughts of many.
This question of whether there is an afterlife is particularly
important for those who look forward to an afterlife in heaven, especially
those who seem to be struggling miserably through life. The problem
is that the latter group might decide to put all their hope in this
heavenly afterlife and give up too soon as far as getting anything
out of this life. It seems to me that it would be much wiser
to work as hard as possible at following God’s way in this life so as
to be more likely to achieve both heaven on earth as well as after.
It seems logical that if heaven after corporal death does exist, you
are more likely to enter it if you have followed God’s way while still
on earth - by living life to the fullest.
REFERENCES