What if God limits himself to act in space-time by having made man an essentially necessary collaborator. If there is any truth to the story of creation...even metaphorical...God gave authority to humans.

So any action outside the norm within what we recognize as our current reality, requires collaboration. The omnipotent chose to limit his interaction because in relationship, which is the bedrock of his intention, proper healthy boundaries must be inviolate. So God asked Ezekiel to speak to the dry bones. Sure he could have done any number of things on his own, if he hadn't decided to enter into relationship with humanity...but rules are rules. And he doesn't just flout them in capricious whimsy.

We have to cohere with him. He needs us to. He made himself need us to.

And if you wonder how far he is willing to take it, look at Gomer and Hosea. The Living Water will cohere with pig swill, if it's willing to. If it's not hydrophobic...

Apart from my facebook comment that magic related to manipulating nature, while God at times has acted in a top down supernatural manner, I wanted to ask, about this social authority, not to put it down, but would you not say that pro-social authority only has divine authority when it is in line/ in cooperation with the will, plan, design etc.of God? I'm not saying it has no power when operating in a deformed way(thinking in terms of 'structure vs direction'). But it is obvious society can be flawed and need reform. Look at sweatshops and slavery and other abuses of people that get pushed aside in many places. Individualististic outsiders can have a positive checking or balancing effect on society, if they pay any attention to them. I'm not arguing against society, but I am into the value and importance of individuals.

God is the ultimate pro-social authority. Our estimations of pro-social authority are always incomplete and limited.

Individuality is not opposed to pro-sociality—it is a function of it. The more pro-social we are, the more individual we are.

Thus Jesus, acting out of ultimate pro-social authority, goes up against the apparent pro-social authority of his time, and reveals it to be anti-social.

An incredibly intriguing argument. Though it will take some time to fully digest, I do have a few questions. The idea of miraculous events being rooted in faith in or recognition of an authority is part of the more common framework of “did God do it, or the devil?”. But the idea that we ourselves exercise the power by that faith seems to state that we alone cannot arrive at a proscial decision. But this is clearly not what the gospels teach. How do you reconcile this? Which leads me to the second question of the placebo effect itself. If a person avails themselves of the placebo effect is this necessarily antisocial because it does not always rely on the pro social recognition of authority?

Hey Chris, can you clarify the statement, "...seems to state that we alone cannot arrive at a prosocial decision". Where is this conclusion coming from?

Gladly Micah! Well, I'll try to at least :-) If I understand the argument you're making, we are able to access the placebo effect because we have faith in a truly good figure (in this case Jesus) who can determine if our desires are truly prosocial and therefore allows us to unlock the effect. This seems to imply, to me anyway, that we need Jesus (or some figure like him) to judge our acts as truly prosocial; we ourselves are unable to know if a thing is truly prosocial and are thus unable to act prosocially. This is clearly not the case by example, nor by teachings of gospel directives, as the Gospels would not enjoin us to a code of behavior we are incapable of achieving. And if I can act in a truly prosocial manner why should I not be able to unlock the effect without reliance on a supremely good author?

Hey Chris, the article I linked to gives some additional background.
http://micahredding.com/blo...

My argument is not that we cannot make prosocial choices in general. It's that our brains don't trust us to make good choices in regards to our internal medicine cabinet.

Consider that we frequently consult friends on whether our outfits look good or bad. If your friend tells you that they hate that shirt, it may go from being your favorite item of clothing, to being something you despise.

In this example, your conscious mind has conspired with your unconscious mind to put "prosocial wardrobe choices" in the hands of your friends.

There's something similar happening in the placebo effect, except that it doesn't need to run through your conscious mind.

When you do a hard day's work, and feel good about it, that "rewarding feeling" is literally the evaluation centers of your brain "rewarding" you with a dose of chemicals. If you were able to access that without going through those "approval processes", you'd probably never be motivated to work at all.

So internal checks-and-balances run deep.

In the case of the placebo effect, I think what we're seeing is that your internal evaluation centers want to include an outside source as part of the approval process.

If that external source "signs off" on the request, your brain may overclock certain processes, dose you with high-grade drugs, or do other things we have not yet considered.

If that external source says "You're fine. Get back to work!", your brain may refuse those requests, and force you to deal with it.

Thank you Micah! Very interesting ideas here with some profound implications.