God versus Science

[Charles David]

Apropos Religious Dogma

I find it terribly ironic that Old Liu accuses us of being a religion where thinks need to be taken on faith, when in fact it is just the opposite. He is the one who operates on faith--faith that allows him to have beliefs, i.e. "Chi Kung cannot cure cancer", without any proof.

I find it unfathomably illogical that people demand scientific proofs for the existence of phenomenon but require absolutely no proof in order to discount something as non-existant. How odd I feel reading textbooks that declare "Ours is the only planet with life on it." Why do we need proof for some things and not for others?

It has long been known to Zen masters that the most difficult person to teach is an intellectual. Old Liu proves this for us again. He thinks that he is open-minded and freethinking, but he already has his mind made up.


Off to Practice,


Charles

[Darryl]

Old Liu: I believe that Chi Kung can cure depression, but not cancer
Shaolin Wahnam: We disagree with you
Old Liu: Then you are wrong
Shaolin Wahnam: We still disagree with you
Old Liu: Then you're a close-minded religious cult
Shaolin Wahnam: We still disagree with you

Old Liu,

I noticed that you insulted one of our posters by implying that he was lying about his qualifications. When he provided evidence to counter your insinuation, your only reply was 'maybe I'm wrong'. If you truly had an open mind, you would have been able to let go of your previously held belief, apologise and reconsider. I am not highlighting this to embarass you, nor to take this thread in an ugly direction.

It's simply one small demonstration of Charles's excellent observation.

[AndrewBill]

@Old-Liu

I didn't know if there is a God for a long time.
Then I realized how to prove him for myself.
I read in the Bible: If Jesus is truly alive... I want to experience him.
That changed my life.

So for you Old-Liu my advice:
If you don't know if Chi Kung can cure Cancer...
Then try to prove it.
Learn how to do it correctly: If you experience Chi Kung... maybe Cancer can be cured with it.


We can talk and talk and talk til eternity but it still remains hypothesis.
Experience it! Then you will know.

warmly
AndrewBill

[DoubleA]

Excellent point AndrewBill. Both with Jesus, the Bible, and Chikung

[Andy]

Further Clarification

• Old Liu has stated his, and I quote, beliefs in Qi and beliefs in the efficacy of qi gong therapy in the cure of cancer.

Thereby implying that Sifu Wong and all of the instructors (and indirectly all SW members) are some kind of chronic navel-gazers, at best fools and at worst liars and charlatans.

• Old Liu has also stated his opinion of Dr Kissey's position on qi gong therapy.

This must be considered a direct assault on the medical credentials, personal intelligence and personal ethics of an active professional involved in both western medicine and qi gong research.

It is furthermore an indirect assault on all those other SW members who are western medics and health professionals involved in qi gong treatment and research, and all those members who are eastern physicians active in qi gong treatment and research.

• Old Liu has repeatedly taken a high moral stance, however, surely if there were even the smallest chance of disease therapy throught qi gong treatment, then the correct course of action would have been to meet, observe, and study the findings of the professional researchers involved before publicly refuting their claims?

As an example of trolling:

If you were to log on to a niche astrophysics forum, state your disbelief in their research and use the argument "Because your position deviates from that of Stephen Hawking" without first familiarising yourself with their position, research and findings then you would be considered a troll taking a dogmatic position and arguing through logical fallacy. Repitition of logical fallacy, failure to recognise logical fallacy and failure to retract logical fallacy does not consititute debate.

His action in regard to a minority view - qi gong therapy - is to state falsity through mass consensus; Both his position and his argument is that of "The Church" to "Galileo":
-> I wont familiarise myself with your work but you are wrong.
-> Why? "Because mass consensus disagrees" OR "Because I said so"

His use of the terms prejudice (while stating disbelief in qi therapy without doing the relevant research and contacting the relevant researchers) and dogma (arguing falsity through mass consensus) are therefore seen to be a truly monumental irony.

• This forum is an exception to most internet forums because the membership for the most part, introduce themselves, do not use aliases and conduct themselves as they would do in real life.

The forum is an extension of the school, the position of which I will clarify:

No beliefs in qi are necessary for participation. Personal religion or lack of is neither enquired of nor discussed when applying for either school courses or qi gong therapy.

The school includes people of various world religions, it includes atheists and it includes agnostics.

• Qi gong therapy, as with Chinese medical therapy, can be observed and researched empirically - as is being done in this school and many others - without participating in a belief system, sinister or otherwise. To suggest that to research qi gong therapy consitutes such is another ridiculous logical fallacy.

• To research qi therapy and then disagree with SW's opinion constitutes discussion and is something that all parties can learn from. To refuse to entertain SW's claims without due diligence is neither discussion nor debate.

I conclude that the above points constitute a violation of forum and general interpersonal conduct, that the repeated setting up and knocking down of straw dogs according to logical fallacy constitutes trolling rather than debate and that high ethical stances without appropriate action speaks for itself.

[AlexBaranosky]

I see your points Andy,

But I am not sure it has to be considered a direct assault.

Perhaps it is an indirect assault. And one that causes no injury to any of us, as long as we make sure Shaolin Wahnam's stance is clear to visitors.

But I suspect Old-Liu hasn't even been aware of what he has been insinuating with some of his comments.

So Old-Liu is not particularly good at logical thinking. That doesn't mean he is assaulting us. It doesn't mean he has ill intent toward us. From where I stand it seems clear he is just discussing things albeit from his own closed-off perspective. (And with many good contributions to the discussion also!)

Just my 4 cents,

[Andy]

Hi Alex,

I also see your points.

However if a medic has stated the efficacy of qi therapy, and is involved in the processes both of research and dispensation of qi therapy, then to contradict his direct in-the-field observations is calling into question that medics ability to think, let alone practice. I consider this a direct, not indirect, attack.

I am not traumatised by any of Old Liu's comments or opinions and Im sure his statements of differing opinion are "water off the back of a duck", so to speak, for the membership of SW - I am simply making my position clear to avoid further misunderstandings.

His shoddy grasp of logic ensures that I should be as clear and direct as possible in delineating this position.

I am doing him a favour in this regard - failure to understand the qi gong paradigm and its associated benefits adequately after all would be his loss and injury, not mine.

[Darran]

Oh dear....another discussion descends into absurdity and paranoia. How disappointing. Now I've nothing to say.
Sincerely,
Darran

[Andy]

Oh dear....another discussion descends into absurdity and paranoia. How disappointing. Now I've nothing to say.
Sincerely,
Darran

So you think it is fair to declare false the claims of a qi therapist without making a personal investigation into the validity of those claims?

[AndrewBill]

@Andy

You wrote:

So you think it is fair to declare false the claims of a qi therapist without making a personal investigation into the validity of those claims?

It's not a question about fairness.

If so then I could also ask this:
"Is it fair to declare false the claims of the prophets and disciples of the Holy Spirit without making a personal investigation into the validity of those claims?"

It's just up to you what you do. But if you try to investigate you can only win.

the Bible says:
Matthew, chapter 7, verse 6
"Do not give what is holy to dogs - they will only turn and attack you. Do not throw your pearls in front of pigs - they will only trample them underfoot."

Keep your peace brother. Do not worry too much. Finally everything will happen because we wanted it that way for ourselves.

The gift of free will (again).

Live and let live.

If you believe in those claims of a qi therapist then u should cure cancer and help others, my brother. The thoughts of others is irrelevant in your doings.

Kindly
AndrewBill

[Chiahua]

Some points I would disagree with:

As an example of trolling:

If you were to log on to a niche astrophysics forum, state your disbelief in their research and use the argument "Because your position deviates from that of Stephen Hawking" without first familiarising yourself with their position, research and findings then you would be considered a troll taking a dogmatic position and arguing through logical fallacy. Repitition of logical fallacy, failure to recognise logical fallacy and failure to retract logical fallacy does not consititute debate.

This is just semantics, but trolling to me is defined by intention. If someone goes onto an astrophysics forum and provoking the members for the fun of it or to rile them up, then I would call that trolling. If this person actually cared about astrophysics then I would disagree. I think Old-Liu was actually interested and engaged in the discussion in a coherent way,compared to other more "troll-like" posters to this forum--you don't need to look hard for examples.

His action in regard to a minority view - qi gong therapy - is to state falsity through mass consensus; Both his position and his argument is that of "The Church" to "Galileo":
-> I wont familiarise myself with your work but you are wrong.
-> Why? "Because mass consensus disagrees" OR "Because I said so"

I agree that if he does not experience what qigong can do, then that is his loss *shrug* I'm not going to get too hung up on it.

The forum is an extension of the school, the position of which I will clarify:

No beliefs in qi are necessary for participation. Personal religion or lack of is neither enquired of nor discussed when applying for either school courses or qi gong therapy.

The school includes people of various world religions, it includes atheists and it includes agnostics.

"No beliefs in qi are necessary for participation"? This I'm not so sure about (a reference would be handy). I just heard Sifu discuss the importance of thoughts and "planting a good seed". Similarly, there is the "heart of confidence"; that there must be the vision of good health prior to success. It is possible to realize the benefits of qi "incidentally" as Sifu puts it, but it would be haphazard and not as consistent as how we practice. I think that for our Shaolin Qigong to have the desired result, you must have a thought or seed that qi is there to allow our sense of it to develop. I welcome corrections to my interpretation of Sifu's teaching.
I think this is why Science™ has a hard time accepting qigong--it generally looks for proof of efficacy uninfluenced by people's beliefs. As an example a treatment ought to work independent of whether or not the patient has belief in its efficacy. That's why random double blind controlled trials are considered the gold standard of proof--neither the experimenter's nor the patient's beliefs will "color" the overall result (instead it just shows up as statistical noise).

*edit* I guess no belief in qi is necessary for participation, but is necessary to get the stated result.

[Darran]

I do Shaolin Qi Gong and kungfu everyday and I don't believe qi gong can cure cancer. I believe the power of the mind can cure cancer and I believe a practitioner that has a good 'bedside manner' can facilitate a cure wether he or she be a qi gong practioner, Chinese Herbalist, homeopath, general practitioner, or whatever. I believe sigung Wong has helped to cure cancer or even cured cancer. I have met him and have seen the power of his personality, his personal power. I don't believe I'm doing sigung Wong a dis-service by comprehending him in this manner.
We all have had many life experiences that lead us in different directions and lead us to hold certain beliefs, sometimes unshakeable beliefs. The things that happen to us, the people we meet all shape us in different ways. I believe in the power of dreams and dream symbols to heal, in fact I believe the dream to be the 'voice of God'. I don't expect anyone else here to believe it because they have not had the experiences I've had that have lead me to this truth.
Let's just discuss things here in this discussion forum!

[Omar]

And Galileo was one of the people who helped establish it. Are you now saying, like the Church did, that Galileo was wrong?

Yes and no.
Yes - because although he just reported his empirical observations thus challenging the then established world view to the great inconvenience of the church, his observations was less complete then what modern astronomers see with their equipment - science's views and current "right answer" changes over time.

Todays' astronomers will be regarded as equally oldfashioned fifty years down the road. So he was wrong, or to be more just; incomplete from todays scientiffic view. Just like the church was before him.

No - No one can dispute Galileo being a great scientist and pioneer, going against the church's esablished religious world picture using his empiric observations. I did not intend to come across as saying him or the other examples I gave was wrong in any other way then being limited by their times' scientiffic tools. As are all scientists, very well worded by Siheng Damian earlyer in this discussion.

Look, just because something is ‘established’ doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. Establishments can, of course, have their own politics, trajectories, etc. but the scientific method itself, established by Galileo et al, is bigger than any specific trajectory, because it is the simple triumph of ‘observe, test, see what is really true.’

It also does not mean that it is always right. Some factors depends on the eye of the beholder, others on as previously stated, the information being available at that time, like Galileo's old telescope compared to for example the Hubble telescope orbiting the Earth.

What can one see, and thus test for truth, and what is being missed? Depends on the information available at the time.

Or your view that chi kung can cure depression and back pains, but not cancer, and that disease is not just energy blockage. Different views from different standpoints; I believe the important thing here is though, this is not based on two different theories or accademic standards, one part (Shaolin Wahnam practitioners) have direct experience as base of stand. On this topic that is like two people discussing what an orange tastes like, but only one of them have ever having tasted one.


This discussion will most likely not end in one part being convinced the other is right, because:

A) You cannot through argumentation change the fact that most participants in this discussion have direct experience of many topics mentioned. Direct experience trancends any knowledge one might have had before, be it theoretical or observational.

B) You yourself cannot be convinced through words alone. I understand your viewpoint very well. One should never accept anyting on words alone.

My suggestion for you to get the best benefit of the discussion would be to seek and directly experience high level chi kung. It will double what you learn here tenfold, and be a great experience.

What Sifu Wong needs is letters from actual oncologists or independent doctors confirming the cures for cancer he has performed. If he has those, he would easily get a university to accept to test him. Wouldn’t he? The scientific method is his weapon, not his oppressor.

Why does he need this? From his previous fruitless and I personally think, unpolite (most likely unintentionally so) responses with scientiffic bodies, I understand Sifu's choice not to run after scientists tugging their sleeves for attention so that a (again my personal opinion) less developed system of healing can verify and attest the validity of the superior one that he not only represents, but embodies.

Well, depression isn’t the same as cancer, is it? Maybe qi gong has a big future in treating depression?

Again, this depends on the eye of the beholder. To me, they are the same; energy blockages in our bodies wich themselves are a component in the meaningful flow of energy that we call life. This is not a view I've reasoned myself to, nor have I read or been told that it is so. Direct experience.

From the current western medical perspective, offcourse cancer and depression are vastly different disorders. However, on this very forum you can find people who have been cured for both through high level chi kung.

But cancer is a physical thing – it can be seen, tested and shown to be there. Helping people with depression isn’t proof of curing cancer.

Offcourse it is not. When Sifu treats someone with depression I'm very certain he does not do what he would if he was treating someone with cancer. Although the goal and result will be the same; restoring energy flow.

It might be that just doing some exercise, getting out, meeting others, believing in yourself or the method helped you kick depression.

I am not a fool.
My experience was quite clear.
Would you say the same to someone who overcame cancer using the method I used; "just doing some exercise"?

Yes, believing in the method is essential - or I would not have practised it!

Making cancerous growths go away is quite another story. That can easily have independent confirmation. And I don’t accept that the proof isn’t there because some hospital wouldn’t accept Sifu Wong to come in. If the cures have happened, then there must be some real record of diagnoses, then cure.

If you read my post again you will see that it was not the issue of the hospital accepting Sifu or not, it was the way he received a response. Sifu choose to drop the subject there.

That may be true. But when it can cure cancer – that’ll be something!

Oh it IS quite something

Would you know how styding for your degree was like from hearing others talk about it, watch college movies or read novels about it, compared to actually attending and graduating university? Same thing with discussing chi kung.

It is a practise, not a field of study. The difference is fundamental.

Go experience.

[Darran]

Again, this depends on the eye of the beholder. To me, they are the same; energy blockages in our bodies wich themselves are a component in the meaningful flow of energy that we call life. This is not a view I've reasoned myself to, nor have I read or been told that it is so. Direct experience.

I take it then Omar you have direct personal experience of cancer?

[Omar]

Yes, as do you - we all get cancer thousands of times during our lives, but mostly our energyflow clear it away - Offcourse I was mainly referring to depression in this case.