Today's column is the second in a three-part series by Alfred A. Barrios titled Science In Support of Religion: From The Perspective of a Behavioral Scientist. And perhaps an accurate subtitle of today's installment might be faith and fate, for Barrios is looking at the notion of free will and fatalism as well as how faith causes us to act differently in the world. For example, what role does faith play in what is known as faith healing? Are some religions more effective and others less effective? And is religion even necessary? Can we not just act rightly for our own satisfaction? And is that not the real basis of what is known as altruism? These are intriguing and pivotal questions in the science religion debate, because asking them keeps us from sliding down the slippery slope of ideology. This kind of inquiry also keeps the lines of communication open, thus allowing for the possibility of a real dialogue and not just a shouting match.

In order to further this conversation here on Metanexus, please write to me, Stacey E. Ake, at <ake@metanexus.net> or click on the comment button at the bottom of this article's webpage. Moreover, if you are really interested in such questions and how their answers can be interpreted, check out the conference INTERPRETATION MATTERS: Science and Religion at the Crossroads to be held June 15 - 20, 2002, at Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania, USA. As a conference for scientists, teachers, scholars, clergy, philosophers, students, activists, and all those with a passion for exploring the important questions raised by religion and science, it is open to anyone and everyone who has a curiosity and concern for the issues raised in today's column, not to mention in many previous columns on Metanexus. For more information about this conference or to register for it, go to<http://www.metanexus.net/conference>

Dr. Barrios, a clinical psychologist and founder/director of the Self-Programmed Control (SPC) Center in Los Angeles is fast becoming one of the leading authorities in the field of Alternative Therapies. His invention - the Stress Control Biofeedback Card; his pioneering work in psychoneuroimmunology and cancer; and his highly effective SPC program for dealing with addictions have added a new dimension to the field of medicine. Formally with The Institute of Comprehensive Medicine and The Health Care Management Institute, Dr. Barrios has lectured to thousands of medical professionals across the country. In 1996 he received the first annual Cancer Federation Award in psychoneuroimmunology and was nominated for the prestigious Norman Cousins Award in Mind-Body Health. In the Fall of 2001 his comprehensive Theory of Hypnosis was published in Contemporary Hypnosis.

-Stacey E.Ake

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Subject: Science In Support of Religion: From The Perspective of a Behavioral Scientist, Part 2/3 From: Alfred A. Barrios Email: <STRESSCARD@aol.com>

Is There Free Will and Are Some Religions Fatalistic?

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.

As presented in 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 publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science ". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Published   2002.05.13