The simple man's prayer is entirely different from that of the truly religious. The simple man prays in a trade-like manner:
By offering prayer, piety, and reverence, he wishes to change outside circumstances and he wishes to influence the actions of his God. His prayer, in the words of Kazantzakis, "is the trivial reckoning of a small tradesman: Give me and I shall give you."

The truly religious, on the other hand, are humble; they know that they're far too small and insignificant to alter the course of outside events. So a truly religious man prays differently:
Such a man says "Thy will be done," and by saying that, he signifies a total submission of his will to the higher will of an omniscient God. Thereby he accepts his inability to influence neither the events of the world nor the actions of his God.

But the religious man's total submission does not lead to nihilism or meaninglessness, because he believes in an omnibenevolent God that has nothing but good intentions and does nothing but good acts. Therefore, whatever happens to such a man will gain a new meaning: it's a part of God's ultimately "good" plan, no matter how meaningless and arbitrary and evil the event may seem.

In summary, the difference boils down to a simple distinction:

The simple man holds himself too highly and therefore thinks he can bend and mold the world to his liking simply by bargaining with God through prayers and piety.
While the truly religious understands his essential weakness and insignificance, and instead of trying to press his own will and desires upon God (and the world), he instead submits and serves the higher, all-knowing, and all-good will of God.

By David Rijckaert III

Disease: is a pathological process, most often physical as in throat infection, or cancer of the bronchus, sometimes undetermined in origin, as in schizophrenia. The quality which identifies disease is some deviation from a biological norm. There is an objectivity about disease which doctors are able to see, touch, measure, smell. Diseases are valued as the central facts in the medical view…

Illness: is a feeling, an experience of unhealth which is entirely personal, interior to the person of the patient. Often it accompanies disease, but the disease may be undeclared, as in the early stages of cancer or tuberculosis or diabetes.

باختصار
Illness is what the patient experiences, while disease is the scientific explanation of what's happening.

.

The idea must be accepted that the disease of the sick man is not the anatomical disease of the doctor. A stone in an atrophic gall bladder can fail to give symptoms for years and consequently create no disease, although there is a state of pathological anatomy .... Under the same anatomical appearances one is sick and one isn’t .... The difficulty must no longer be conjured away by simply saying that there are silent and masked forms of disease: these are nothing but mere words. The lesion is not enough perhaps to make the clinical disease the disease of the sick man, for this disease is something other than the disease of the anatomical pathologist

- René Leriche

"مَرَضُ الرجلِ العليل ليس نفسَه المرضَ التشريحي للطبيب."

Bot:
تعقيبًا على آخر موضوع بالقناة
اتذكرت مقولة لأحد أستاذتنا من يگول :
"Treat the patient, not the radiograph"

Medicine deals mainly with the patient, and not with biological problems (disease) in the strict sense, because a disease does not affect the patient only on the biological level. From the patient's perspective, it's an "illness," and it affects them on social, psychological, and financial levels. In other words, it's an existential problem, because it poisons the very existence of the patient.

That's why medicine, by dealing with both the patient's biological disease and existential illness, is also intertwined with all kinds of scientific, social, ethical, psychological, and even philosophical matters.

The origin of the book is obscure. We may think of the cathedrals, miscalled Gothic, that are the works of generations of men. But there is an essential difference: the artisans and craftsmen of the cathedrals knew what they were making. In contrast, The Thousand and One Nights appears in a mysterious way. It is the work of thousands of authors, and none of them knew that he was helping to construct this illustrious book, one of the most illustrious books in all literature (and one more appreciated in the West than in the East, so they tell me).

We know that chronology and history exist, but they are primarily Western discoveries. There are no Persian histories of literature or Indian histories of philosophy, nor are there Chinese histories of Chinese literature, because they are not interested in the succession of facts. They believe that literature and poetry are eternal processes. I think they are basically right.

The Thousand and One Nights is not something which has died. It is a book so vast that it is not necessary to have read it, for it is a part of our memory, and also, now, a part of tonight.