here, I quote from a Chicago Tribune article [see 001., below]; then, link it to naturopathy, freedom of conscience, and pseudoscience [see 002., below]:
001. Amanda Marrazzo writes in "For Many, Prayer Part of Healing Process" (2010-10-15):
"minister [...] Greg Barrette said he has witnessed the benefits of prayer in the healing process. 'All healing is spiritual, even healing that appears to be to coming from medicine or surgical procedure,' said Barrette, who recently led a class on spiritual healing [...] 'it's the life force within that is facilitated by medical treatment and the life force is of god' [...] the relationship between prayer and physical healing has long been the subject of conflicting studies. Some indicate prayer can help, but at least one study concluded that in some cases it can be harmful [...e.g.] in fact, researchers at Harvard Medical School and five other U.S. medical centers found that coronary bypass patients who were told strangers were praying for them did worse than those who got no prayers [...] the Rev. Neris Diaz-Cabello, a chaplain at Sherman Hospital, said [...] 'there is power in believing. There is power in knowing someone else is out there remembering them in prayer.'"
Note: here, I'll term the belief that 'all is spiritual' panspiritism / animatism. But, to me, it's rational to distinguish between a discrete, physical, natural universe that works due to cause and effect in a very tangible / evident manner, and the lenses of projected supernaturalistic vagarities that are like a train that never shows up at the station you're waiting at. I actually think it is completely false to claim, for instance, that the process of healing is something other than the mechanisms of human biology in action, which, all in all, ends up originating from our genotype [physical, chemical, biological].
Notice the equation of "life force" / vitalism with spiritism / supernaturalism / theism -- what I've often called animatistic autoentheism. The belief: if there's a life force within you, equated with god, then you believe that god is within you -- auto[self], en[within], theism [god belief] -- as an impersonal 'life force spirit' [animatism]. In terms of parsimony / 'what is in evidence', this belief is not needed to understand how the body works and what it is comprised of. That is why it has been ejected from science. Yes, there is good and bad regarding prayer rituals. I'm all for the hope and strength that may come from prayer / praying rituals of whatever type, but I think such can be done without creating delusions / irrationalities. Delusions, I think it is fair to say, don't create power.
002. naturopathy's animatistic autoentheistic primary delusion / irrationality! You'll see, when you look at the essentially naturopathic, that it is a belief system that falsely poses animatistic autoentheism as an objective scientific fact:
002.a. here are my notes from ND school that describes their "life force" aka "vis medicatrix naturae" as "god power within".
002.b. here is that program [to this day] claiming to be "science".
Note: I'm all for people believing whatever they so choose as a matter of "freedom of conscience." It's an inalienable civil liberty. But, academically and commercially, labeling something what it isn't is irrational and illegal. What troubles me about naturopathy, specifically, is its blithe disregard for honest categorical labels as regards belief and scientific fact.
I'll pose my historical situation [wherein this is relevant] in terms of my naturopathic education:
I read the literature of the naturopathic mother organization that [incorrectly] tells the world that naturopathy is, essentially, "science" and 'not a belief system';
I plan my life toward naturopathy based upon this label / naturopathy's claims;
I attend ND college only to find out that essentially, naturopathy is a belief system well outside what can legitimately be called science [their categorical labels were, when you dig down to the 'actual naturopathic', false];
then, Naturocrit is born [as a matter of duty].
And, you should be careful still, obviously: they don't accurately disclose their science-ejected nature.
