Stephen asked:

A while back, I took a course in Reiki healing (which I felt particularly drawn to). Although the course
claimed explicitly that no special belief is required for the practice of Reiki, the course was steeped in
new age metaphysics (chakras, meridians, auras, crystals, angels, energy fields etc.), all of which I
am extremely sceptical of. (I regard myself as essentially an agnostic or atheist.)

For those who are not aware of it, the main metaphysical claim of the Reiki system is that the
practitioner taps into a source of 'energy' from the universe called 'ki' (equivalent to 'chi' or 'prana' in
other Eastern philosophies). 'Rei' refers to this energy's alleged divine source. Although I do not
believe this literally, regarding it as somewhat of a 'figment of the imagination', I am aware of the
psychological power of a mental image (creative visualisation), and so take the metaphysics as purely
a (fictional) visualisation as an aid to practice. On practicing it, I have found it appears to be very
effective, despite my scepticism. I thus seem to have a purely pragmatic approach to it.

However, some critics have claimed that it is impossible to divorce the practice of such arts from the
associated metaphysical beliefs, especially the highly traditional forms, such as the style of Reiki I
learned. Is it truly possible to practice such arts without 'buying into' the metaphysics to some extent
(even it is only one's subconscious which accepts them)? If not, then how could a sceptic honestly
practice without compromising his/ her rational belief system? (I'm ignoring the 'absent healing'
aspect of the practice here, involving healing at a distance, which is purely a matter of faith).

My pragmatic approach to the subject does not feel very solidly grounded, however, and I sometimes
wonder if a lot of what I'm doing is just pointless 'mumbo-jumbo'. I would therefore appreciate some
philosophical guidance to shed some light on this issue, and to help put my mind at rest on this point!

Another important question is, would it be ethical for me to teach traditional Reiki (after taking the
appropriate training) if I don't actually subscribe to the metaphysical beliefs which I am teaching? If I
were to introduce a measure of scepticism (or pragmatism) into the training I were to offer, by saying
that the metaphysics does not have to be taken literally, would this detract from the authenticity of the
training I am providing, especially if I am offering it as training in its traditional form, which has never
taken the metaphysics figuratively, to the best of my knowledge? (In traditional Reiki, for example,
'attunement' rituals are viewed as absolutely necessary for induction into the practice, in order to
'tune' the practitioner into the 'energy source', which is something I personally doubt is necessary, as
a direct result of my scepticism).

I'd appreciate any help on these issues, as I'm wondering if a sceptic like me would be better suited to
another career path!

============

If you find that Reiki is "very effective" perhaps there is a source of energy that is tapped into. This
could have a divine source — in which case I would understand this energy source to be in some way
external to the individual. As you say, it is easier to believe in a psychological power — but what
would that be and why haven't psychologists founded this method of healing? What words would they
use to describe the energy?

I would suggest that metaphysics isn't supposed to be taken literally. You are buying in to a way of
speaking about an energy that can't be reduced to the physical and cannot be measured even if it is
psychological. If you recognise this you are not compromising your rational belief system, but simply
accepting that there are phenomena in the world that cannot be rationally explained.

The "mumbo-jumbo" hasn't been pointless. It is the origin of something you take to be an effective
healing practice. It may seem obsolete, but you could try to respect the way the mystical origin has
given rise to an effective practice.

Perhaps it isn't quite sincere to continue to practice traditional Reiki but I'm not sure it is really
unethical to teach things you don't believe in. You could see teaching as being for the benefit of the
one who learns and for whom the metaphysics might be acceptable.

If you were seriously sceptical you wouldn't have become a Reiki healer in the first place!

Rachel Browne

Probably. Most of that stuff is utter garbage. Let me put it this way: the placebo effect works about 30
per cent of the time. So if you can reliably demonstrate that you get betterthan 30 per cent "healing"
or whatever from that stuff, you're above the baseline for plain suggestibility.

I'll put it another way. You can certainly justify practicing the above on the basis that if someone
believes that it will help, it will, about 30 per cent of the time. If that's good enough for you, then, hey,
go for it. Just be aware that anything else that people believe in will also help equally. The ethical
question is whether it's moral to support beliefs in nonsense in order to achieve the real results that
you will achieve through suggestion. A hard question to answer, since you won't convince most of the
people coming to you that their beliefs are wrong. I wouldn't do it myself, but perhaps I'm wrong, and
it's worth it for that effect, which is a real one. Be warned, however, that the placebo effect has its
limits. You won't cure cancer and pretty much any sort of serious illness with it, and supporting a
belief in what is basically superstition will bias people against seeking legitimate doctors who might
actually help them. Aside from the dubious morality of supporting a belief in superstition in the first
place.

You might take a look at a magazine called the Skeptical Inquirer on this sort of thing; it's on the web.
Also, here are some references:

Giovannoli, J. 2000. The Biology of belief: how our biology biases our beliefs and perceptions.
Rosetta Press, Inc.

Harrington, A., ed. 2000. The placebo effect: an interdisciplinary exploration.Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Hines, T. 1988. Pseudoscience and the paranormal: a critical examination of the evidence.Buffalo,
NY: Prometheus Books.

Schick, T., Jr., and L. Vaughn. 1995. How to think about weird things: critical thinking for a new age.
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Shermer, M. 1997. Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other
confusions of our time.New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.

Young, A.W. 2000. "Wondrous Strange: The Neuropsychology of Abnormal Beliefs." Mind and
Language15 (1):47-73.

Steven Ravett Brown

25