Ancient Precursors

Writing in 1665, author Seigneur de Saint-Evremond (Charles de Saint-Denis) wondered why people continued to believe they had been healed in the face of quite contrary evidence. He made surprisingly modern and astute observations on the psychology of the victims of a faith-healer of that day, Valentine Greatraks:An idea of health made the sick forget for a while their maladies; and imagination, which was not less active in those merely drawn by curiosity than in the sick, gave a false view to the one class, from the desire of seeing, as it operated a false cure on the other from the strong desire of being healed. Such was the power of [Greatraks] over the mind, and such was the influence of the mind upon the body.

He went on to explain why those who knew the truth failed to speak out:Nothing was spoken of in London but [Greatraks’s] prodigies; and these prodigies were supported by such great authorities, that the bewildered multitude believed them almost without examination, while more enlightened people did not dare to reject them from their own knowledge. The public opinion, timid and enslaved, respected this imperious and, apparently, well-authenticated error. Those who saw through the delusion kept their opinion to themselves, knowing how useless it was to declare their disbelief to a people filled with prejudice and admiration.

Saint-Evremond’s observations are as applicable today as they were more than three centuries ago. The costumes, the calendars, and the names change. But a certain percentage of the population continues to fall for the Popoffs as they did for the Cagliostros.

What You See Is Not What You Get

It is evident that in religion, there is, unfortunately, no “truth in advertising” rule. Outrageous claims can be made without fear of censure.   The greatest dread for the faith-healers is straightforward, rational, scientific evaluation of their claims. The Christian Science church is the prime example of a head-on attempt to reconcile religion with science. The church’s claims have been looked into extensively, and the conclusion has not been favorable. Other religions have attempted, ineffectually (except to the faithful), to meld scientific thought and dogma, utilizing fuzzy analogies and leaky logic that does not survive close examination. Many people are unable to evaluate such reasoning properly because they are unaware of what science does and does not claim. Science appears to be a remote, ivory-tower idea that cannot be dealt with by the average person. Writing in his book The Scientific Approach, Carlo Lastrucci puts forth the basic principles of the scientific reasoning process, one of which is that... all events have a natural cause.... This postulate epitomizes the great historical break of modern science away from fundamentalist religion, on the one hand, and from spiritualism and magic on the other. It implies, in effect, that explanations shall be sought in natural causes or antecedents ... It eschews supernatural definitions of phenomena, and rejects the notion that forces, agents or agencies other than those found in nature operate to influence the cosmos, the earth and its flora and fauna. When a supposedly supernatural or extranatural explanation is offered for a perplexing phenomenon, the scientist assumes that the answer will be found in natural forces or events. And until such time that he can explain the event in natural terms, he rejects the belief that some other order of explanation is necessary. If the history of science proves anything, it proves that the scientist has not yet had his confidence in this belief shaken to date.

Obviously, when the claimed phenomena have not yet even been established, it is doubly illogical to offer “supernatural or extranatural” explanations for them. Until we taste the cake, we cannot discuss the flavor. But the faithful do not require that the cake be produced. As Lastrucci said to me, they have loose criteria for accepting a simple physical sensation or an inspiration as a miracle, and will gladly approximate Descartes by declaring, “I felt it, therefore it is.”