|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How are modern miracles authenticated?
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
There have been many attempts to verify miracles. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the modern (largely charismatic) movements are focussed on what they call 'healing'. Before I mention those, it should be noted that most religions have 'miracle' cultures and claim basically the same stuff that some Christians claim as miraculous (healing, speaking in tongues, miraculous statues, and on and on). Once the modern charismatic movements really kicked into high gear in the USA skeptics appeared immediately to test such claims. The best starting place is still probably Nolan's _Doctor in Search of a Miracle_. He was pretty thorough (though modern investigations into supernatural healing are generally more stringent) and found no evidence that any genuine healing took place. There have been others, a recent socialigical approach is taken by Jörg Stolz ( here). After a while, most medical investigators abandoned the search for miracles—for reasons that should be obvious.
K.
I can't speak for the specific cases he investigated. But frankly, ulcers healing, deaf hearing, etc... If it's such a clever but nevertheless contrived and "trick" combination of "social inputs" that produces such effects, the explaining of them so they can be comfortably categorised and then packaged and dismissed is kinda missing the point. Because I don't see this being applied in medicine, despite this "we know how this was done" type of explanation being given. Nope. The paper referenced (Jörg) explains as if the explanation makes these just everyday happenings that everybody who knows anything knows just happen all the time. It's comfortable, reassuring, and we now can go back home and know that the world is exactly as predictable as we thought it was before we read this paper. All scientific laws are obeyed, it's a placebo. Pat on back.
When I see similar types of hearings as he describes being produced as routine in medicine by means of inducing the placebo effect he uses as explanation, then I will be more inclined to take notice of his academic erudition. At the moment, that ain't the case.
In summary, the paper, published academically so as to give some degree of respectability, is no more than sleight of hand. Maybe honestly written by an author who really believes his own conclusions. But nevertheless, sleight of hand, with some important aspects skated over in an act of arm waving. Reminds me of URL=http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html]this cartoon[/URL].
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
69 : 200,000,000
That IS miraculous. Less than spontaneous remission I'd have thought, what two, three in a million looks significantly low.
Is that Lourdes you are giving stats for?
Someone explained the process of review to me in detail. Basically, to be declared a miracle there has to be zero possibility that the specific dis-ease recovered from is capable of spontaneous remission.
69 "there is absolutely no possibility of it being anything other than a miracle" is a strong challenge to those who insist there are no miracles!
To get the total number of healings you have to add to the 69 the many "spontaneous remissions" that just happened to coincide with the appeal to God and get written off by skeptics as "natural."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
69 : 200,000,000
That IS miraculous. Less than spontaneous remission I'd have thought, what two, three in a million looks significantly low.
...
To get the total number of healings you have to add to the 69 the many "spontaneous remissions" that just happened to coincide with the appeal to God and get written off by skeptics as "natural."
Absolutely. Though the words usually used are "placebo" and "delusion", and then the 69 where these can no longer be applied are just dismissed as statistical anomalies. Life continues to be comfortable, no need to think.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
I think I would agree with Lamb Chopped's perspective, even though I come at it from a very different direction.
I've had at least one experience that some would call a "miracle". I hobbled into a friend's house on crutches with a swollen foot, and walked out normally with the crutches under my arm an hour later. The foot had been bothering me for weeks, and the doctors had not been able to do figure out what was wrong. The "healing" lasted for at least a month, maybe more than a year. (It was long enough ago that I don't remember those details.)
Was that a miracle? I'm sure there are many who would have been happy to claim it as one if they could get credit for it.
Did we consider it a miracle? Only of the everyday sort. Life's like that.
Can I explain it? I don't see any need to try. I sat there with my foot propped up, he sat by it, and we didn't say anything for 20 minutes or so while we each focused on my foot. Even if he told me what he had been doing/thinking during that time, I'd have only his word for it.
For all I know, it might have been:
1) the foot got better because I relaxed and elevated it (even though I did this whenever I could)
2) he prayed for healing
3) he used Reiki
4) he visualized different colors of healing energy, and maybe waved a crystal around it while I had my eyes closed
5) he wrestled with the demons and cast them out
6) The candle next to me was scented with myrrh and mugwort
Does the "miracleness" of the healing depend on what we think caused it?
Neither of us consider it a big deal, and it isn't something I feel a need to talk about or explain (except where it comes in handy in discussions such as this here on the Ship). I don't know my friend's religious beliefs - I suspect he is an atheist engineer type, as I am. Yes, it may have affected the way we see the world to some extent, but it obviously wasn't inconsistent with our prior beliefs because it didn't cause any significant shifts.
(Just to be clear - for me it isn't a matter of "that's too weird and I can't explain it so I'll ignore it", but rather "of course the world works that way.")
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Think what? The God is evanescently capricious?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
There have been many attempts to verify miracles. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the modern (largely charismatic) movements are focussed on what they call 'healing'. Before I mention those, it should be noted that most religions have 'miracle' cultures and claim basically the same stuff that some Christians claim as miraculous (healing, speaking in tongues, miraculous statues, and on and on). Once the modern charismatic movements really kicked into high gear in the USA skeptics appeared immediately to test such claims. The best starting place is still probably Nolan's _Doctor in Search of a Miracle_. He was pretty thorough (though modern investigations into supernatural healing are generally more stringent) and found no evidence that any genuine healing took place. There have been others, a recent socialigical approach is taken by Jörg Stolz ( here). After a while, most medical investigators abandoned the search for miracles—for reasons that should be obvious.
K.
I can't speak for the specific cases he investigated. But frankly, ulcers healing, deaf hearing, etc... If it's such a clever but nevertheless contrived and "trick" combination of "social inputs" that produces such effects, the explaining of them so they can be comfortably categorised and then packaged and dismissed is kinda missing the point. Because I don't see this being applied in medicine, despite this "we know how this was done" type of explanation being given. Nope. The paper referenced (Jörg) explains as if the explanation makes these just everyday happenings that everybody who knows anything knows just happen all the time. It's comfortable, reassuring, and we now can go back home and know that the world is exactly as predictable as we thought it was before we read this paper. All scientific laws are obeyed, it's a placebo. Pat on back.
When I see similar types of hearings as he describes being produced as routine in medicine by means of inducing the placebo effect he uses as explanation, then I will be more inclined to take notice of his academic erudition. At the moment, that ain't the case.
In summary, the paper, published academically so as to give some degree of respectability, is no more than sleight of hand. Maybe honestly written by an author who really believes his own conclusions. But nevertheless, sleight of hand, with some important aspects skated over in an act of arm waving. Reminds me of URL=http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html]this cartoon[/URL].
I am so bored with your logical fallacies and straw men that I resign myself to your role as bluebottle of the Ship.
If you've got a miracle, mate, prove it. And I mean prove it. I mean get a university scientific department on board and get it funded. Get it authenticated, get it proven. The fact is that you cannot. Your claims are utterly impotent and morally flaccid. Don't try to play the science card and then ignore its presence when played in another hand. You cannot have it and not have it.
Your continue to insist that pigs can fly. Prove it.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I resign myself to your role as bluebottle of the Ship.
Kindly do so in Hell or keep your thoughts to yourself.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
If you've got a miracle, mate, prove it. And I mean prove it. I mean get a university scientific department on board and get it funded. Get it authenticated, get it proven. The fact is that you cannot. Your claims are utterly impotent and morally flaccid. Don't try to play the science card and then ignore its presence when played in another hand. You cannot have it and not have it. Your continue to insist that pigs can fly. Prove it.
What do you mean by "scientifically proving a miracle"? That does not even make sense. By definition of what a miracle is, and how science works, this is just an illogical request. Faced with a miracle, the most science can say is "There is currently no known explanation for this phenomenon, and nothing currently known suggests itself as a potential explanation for the future." That's all science can possibly deliver. And yes, in fact such verdicts are being delivered quite regularly by science about miracles. Well, in fact by scientists, since actual science is done by human beings; and for the most part by medical doctors, since most claimed miracles are actually medical. Still, with these caveats the simple truth is that what you request is out there. If you want to critique the work of the scientific commission at Lourdes, for example, then of course you are welcome to do so. But you cannot simply pretend that it doesn't exist or does nothing. And you should be a bit careful with your critique, for this commission is not simply stacked with ultra-faithful Catholics. Indeed, membership in that commission is not faith-bound, and there have been quite a number of atheist doctors working in it. And there is also the famous case of an agnostic Noble laureate in Medicine witnessing two miraculous cures at Lourdes, see here.
Does that mean science has proven the existence of miracles? No, of course not. As mentioned, science cannot possibly do that. But science has certainly looked at some miraculous cures somewhat and concluded that there is no explanation available for them currently. And so at a level that goes beyond the run-of-the-mill "we don't know yet". More at the level of "we appear to have observed an object moving faster than light" or "this appears to be a perpetual motion machine".
Perhaps this should mean a rush of scientific activity, as one would certainly expect for the mentioned observations in physics. However, you do run into "sociology of science" problems there. For one thing, said university departments will likely find it rather difficult to get a grant from the Medical Research Council for investigating cures at Lourdes. And universities departments are a lot more interested in the way grant money is flowing than you might think... For another thing, career progression for academics looking at miracles might prove rather non-miraculously slow.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
some things happen
Well - if not science, then just faith, trust, belief. Those goalposts suit me fine. But in that case, there is no requirement for proof, demonstration, evidence or anything else along those lines. Also no need to publish yet another academic paper.
I am slightly uncertain, however, about the "logical fallacies". If the burden of proof is supposedly on (I don't like the word - these are really normal) "miracles", the same must be said for any explanation that claims the so-called miracles are just "business as usual" placebo. If the statement that they are attributable entirely to placebo is plain bluster with no demonstrable foundation, then it's hardly a good argument, is it, regardless of how sweetly the description has been composed? Show me a placebo, social intervention, rhythmic ritual, etc that can heal up ulceration in a few days (that, I believe was one of the cases quoted by Jorg), and then maybe you have a case worth listening to. You'll also have made a great medical discovery. I'd like to see any consulting clinical psychologist, surgeon or other medical professional wield the "placebo effect" so effectively. Really - I would like that - this is not a sarcastic statement - it would be a marvellous advance in the care of illness, infection and injury.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I resign myself to your role as bluebottle of the Ship.
Kindly do so in Hell or keep your thoughts to yourself.
/hosting
Apologies.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bugger. THAT God is evanescently (blink and you'll miss it) capricious (at best). Like once a year at the pool of Siloam.
And K. We gots to find a way to embrace the unembracable. Help me!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
What is proof?
I had severe back pain, wore a back brace. At a healing conference a little old lady friend prayed and I was healed right then of the structural problem that had caused the pain. I kept laughing in amazed grateful delight.
I really did consider taking a few days off without pay, buying a flight to the city where a doctor had Xrays of the problem, paying for a hotel, renting a car, paying for an office visit and new Xrays to officially verify the healing. I didn't because no skeptic would believe me. They'd say the doc was falsifying records to scheme with me for some reason, or had gotten my records mixed up with someone elses. And if the records were irrefutable about change they'd say the healing was just natural and spontaneous and not a miracle.
The proof people seem to demand is a doctor of their choice makes careful examination before the miracle healing and then makes a follow-up examination afterwards. I.e. they want a miracle on demand for a pre-determined problem at a designated time.
Doesn't work that way. Not only is it unpredictable who if anyone God will heal on any day, but also we all have multiple problems, a full exam and analysis of every problem in any one person's body - from decayed teeth with fillings to near sightedness to athlete's foot and everything in between, would be expensive and "not medically necessary" so it's not going to happen.
I went to the healing conference because an M.D. said I had pneumonia and needed bed rest but my job had no sick leave, I was in serious danger of losing my job. Instead of healing pneumonia and saving my job God healed my back pain. I lost my job.
Later I found another job. And in years since the healing I have been skiing and mountain hiking and horse riding - things I couldn't do with the back pain. When doing an activity I couldn't do before because of the pain, I still sometimes laugh in amazed grateful delight.
Some of you will insist I'm making up this whole story. You'll demand "proof." [Shrug] Your demands are not my concern because whether or not you believe me, I am still enjoying my healing from previous severe back pain. (And fussing at God about why so much need and so few miracles, but that's a different issue.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I don't think you are making it up at all.
I just very much doubt that God did it. How would he choose who to heal and who to leave in pain?
My friend had a similar spontaneous healing - no prayer involved.
If God heals due to prayer, why are we looking at the most terrible photos of people who can't even touch their loved ones as they die (ebola) I can't imagine how much fervent prayer there has been about that situation.
If God heals - then he's the meanest God possible, leaving 1000s to die completely alone and in terrible pain and choosing to heal a few at 'healing' services.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I thanked God for His provision for you Belle Ringer.
As for Lourdes, two miracles a hundred years old, assuming that they and the other 67, one every 2 or 3 years and millions, are 110% true despite the utterly inadequate testimonies, if they are in proportion to faith then we have none.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I was in agony of stress induced sciatica with pronounced scoliosis at a church festival in Ireland. Outside an American chiropractor - and I regard such as placebo merchants at best - saw me walking like a crab, massaged me vigorously with his elbow and clawed his way in to my joints.
Gone.
I wept with relief.
It came back of course. But I know that it will go. It's manageable. Like my blood pressure and sugar. Until the neuraesthenia in my right ring finger turns out not to be RSI but MS ![[Smile]](smile.gif) It'll go for good then!
God's provision is wonderful in and for every circumstance. Like my friend's radiance as he is eaten alive by bone cancer as I will see again today.
[ 03. December 2014, 09:42: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
That's wonderful, BelleRinger
And interestingly, it took some effort on your part to go specifically for help from God - you went to meet him and ask despite many reasons why you should not have done so.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think you are making it up at all.
I just very much doubt that God did it. How would he choose who to heal and who to leave in pain?
My friend had a similar spontaneous healing - no prayer involved.
If God heals due to prayer, why are we looking at the most terrible photos of people who can't even touch their loved ones as they die (ebola) I can't imagine how much fervent prayer there has been about that situation.
If God heals - then he's the meanest God possible, leaving 1000s to die completely alone and in terrible pain and choosing to heal a few at 'healing' services.
Yes. I think there is an issue with constraints, or lack of them. My local shaman claims to be able to help bad backs, migraines, cancer, and she will also have a crack at your sick pets as well.
Well, she might be bull-shitting, of course, but supposing she can actually do some of this - is this an act of God?
It might be, or it might be placebo, or some other kind of natural healing, which she is able to harness.
This is what I mean by constraints - there are none apparently. Healing just seems to go on all over the place, whether prayed for or not. Is it all from God? It could be, and it could also not be.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's in His provision. No authentication required. Or edifices of claim upon claim.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My local shaman claims to be able to help bad backs, migraines, cancer, and she will also have a crack at your sick pets as well.
Well, she might be bull-shitting, of course, but supposing she can actually do some of this - is this an act of God?
It might be, or it might be placebo, or some other kind of natural healing, which she is able to harness.
This is what I mean by constraints - there are none apparently. Healing just seems to go on all over the place, whether prayed for or not. Is it all from God? It could be, and it could also not be.
Healing happens in many ways. God mostly prefers to work through the world God made and through the people and animals God made. (Including working through non-Christians, of course!)
Most people heal "naturally" from vastly most dis-ease. Cut your finger, it heals. Catch a virus or bacteria most of them heal. Break a bone, vastly most of them heal. Healing is far from rare!
Some see God's hand in all of it, starting with designing this amazing thing we call a living body that continually self repairs instead of just wearing away like a stone.
Others deny God has anything to do with any of it. That's why 69 "no medically possible explanation, even spontaneous healing is not possible in this instance" miracles matter.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, my point is that denying that God has a hand in healing, and asserting it, are both ill-founded. I mean, there is no way of knowing either position, as far as I can see. How could I have the information to say that God is not present? Or that he is present?
Of course, you can hope for either one, or sincerely believe either one, and so on.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
If a devout Catholic doctor (of medicine) reads an account of a miracle used to confirm beatification or sainthood, and receives, inexplicably, an inspirational insight into the way the disease might work - and be cured or controlled by "normal" - though new - medical interventions, what should he do?
If, more disturbingly, he should come to believe that the disease might actually have been healed through the intervention of conventional medicine prior to the prayers addressed to the putative saint, what should he do?
Fewer healing miracles are now accepted as proof of saintly intercession. But once a saint is made, is it, so to speak, an infallible done deal? Is the requirement that no normal intervention can possibly work, or that none has yet been discovered? The former sounds fatalistic at best, and arrogant at worst.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, my point is that denying that God has a hand in healing, and asserting it, are both ill-founded. I mean, there is no way of knowing either position, as far as I can see. How could I have the information to say that God is not present? Or that he is present?
Of course, you can hope for either one, or sincerely believe either one, and so on.
If the assumption is that Life=God (or at least the Holy Spirit - however you wish to define the relationship between God and Life), then automatically, where life is wholesome (i.e. returns to health) this is the work of God - no matter what the external means by which that appeared to occur - surgery, medication, acupuncture, "placebo", "miracle" - Life has returned to wholeness, and the life force is expressing itself fully.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
If, more disturbingly, he should come to believe that the disease might actually have been healed through the intervention of conventional medicine prior to the prayers addressed to the putative saint, what should he do?
He's should report it in the usual manner to his medical peers, if it is of sufficient scientific interest. Obviously.
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Fewer healing miracles are now accepted as proof of saintly intercession. But once a saint is made, is it, so to speak, an infallible done deal? Is the requirement that no normal intervention can possibly work, or that none has yet been discovered? The former sounds fatalistic at best, and arrogant at worst.
Canonisation is indeed generally considered to be infallible, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the pope. But let's be clear what is being infallibly decided there. Namely simply this: the canonised saint in fact is in heaven now. Not more, not less. This says nothing about the actual status of the "approved miracles". Neither does it in fact say anything about the life of the saint, other than that it wasn't so bad as to land this person in hell.
Of course, the RCC is canonising saints in the expectation that they personify heroic faith and virtue. So they try hard to canonise only those who are worthy. Well, they try hard to do so now. In the past that often was a much more fast and loose business, and one much less centralised. Anyway, it is entirely possible that some scoundrel ends up as canonised saint. Because it is entirely possible that a scoundrel scrapes into heaven, and shit happens, even in canonisation procedures.
Likewise, miracles are looked for as a kind of proof that somebody is in heaven. Basically the logic is "only God could have done this, it was done by the intercession of this dead person being prayed to, hence God must be listening to this person, hence that person must be in heaven." Well, if the miracle turns out to be fake, what does this mean? It means that this proof fails. It does not however mean that the person in question is not in heaven. What guarantees the canonisation is not this proof, but the Holy Spirit.
In a sense, the whole ado of the canonisation procedure has two purposes. On one hand, it tries to avoid disastrous PR fails. It would be good if the Church didn't propose too many scoundrels to the faithful as worthy of emulation. On the other hand, it tries to execute a kind of due diligence in order to not put the Holy Spirit to the test. It's a matter of "we have done what we possibly can, now it's up to God to make sure it's right".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thank you, that's very reassuring - even to a (lapsed) proddy!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Yup. Very clearly put. Thank you, IngoB.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
They're counter productive Belle Ringer. They matter negatively in many, many ways. Perpetuating a vast edifice of patriarchy being the essence.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
They're counter productive Belle Ringer. They matter negatively in many, many ways. Perpetuating a vast edifice of patriarchy being the essence.
I'm lost - what's counter-productive? I'm guessing you mean "miracles, because they support the institutional church"? *IF* that's what you mean, I think the institutional "vast edifice of patriarchy" is not at all dependent on modern day miracles, they rely on "traditions" (of men, many of us believe, whether spelled with a big or little T).
Most miracles that I know about personally took place outside the churches. The institutions don't even know about them. Individuals with a track record of healing others occasionally through prayer are usually not clergy.
I see modern miracles as proof that most of God's active involvement takes place outside the institution and at the hands of lay people. This is quite the opposite of reinforcing the control of institution and clergy!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
What I've seen here and elsewhere is a distrust in "miracles" and attempts to explain them away in any way possible other than divine agency. There are quite a few religious groups who believe that anything that occurs outside the confines of modern medicine (and its limitations) is the work of the Devil. What an extraordinary state of affairs that there are many people blaming God for all the ills of the world, and very few accepting that there is help available. Nice political spin PR job by Satan. When I first realised that "miracles" are actually normal in the spiritual world, it took a long time to get to grips with the implications. In fact, I still have not fully grasped them. I can say them, but living in a way that is congruent to that is rather different.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Here are the ground rules for discussing the supernatural as I have experienced them in UK and US charismania.
1. If someone claims a miracle, vision, picture, tongue, etc. to be from God it must be accepted as such (there are some extremely narrow parameters under which they might be questioned)
2. The proponents of said miraculous manifestation can ask for 'verification' and or 'evidence' and then claim whatever they find as 'scientific' unless it undermines point no. 1 in which case the proponent can use an infinite number of exceptions as being part of, or indeed evidence of, God's mysterious ways.
What I find so upsetting is the frequently misleading and even dishonest ways in which charasmania interacts (if that's the right word) with the scientific or scholarly communities. They speak and behave as if there is some kind of genuine dialogue taking place—but there isn't. Charismania will only engage so long as their dogmas are confirmed. No amount of scientific evidence with persuade them; it will only help confirm their suspicions of the scholarly community as ungodly skeptics.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Here are the ground rules for discussing the supernatural as I have experienced them in UK and US charismania.
1. If someone claims a miracle, vision, picture, tongue, etc. to be from God it must be accepted as such (there are some extremely narrow parameters under which they might be questioned)...
They have tossed out the clearly stated in the Bible obligation to "test" before accepting?
The groups I hang out with occasionally, all insist the "receiver" of a "word" or "picture" or etc must present it as "I think I'm hearing from God, does this mean anything to you?" and offer the "received" info, but not impose anything on another. A. None of us is always right, B. Even if a "word" or "picture" is true the "receiver's" interpretation of it's meaning is often wrong. C. A person to whom a "received" message is then conveyed will make their own decision. In reality, acceptance CANNOT be imposed!
Example of A, a man told me "God told me you should marry me." He thought he heard from God, I thought he heard from his own desires so I ignored it because if God wants me to marry someone I don't love God can give me a clue directly not just through an interested person.
Example of B. I had been praying for a man with a phrasing I have never heard others use nor spoken out loud. A man I knew slightly said to me "God told me to tell you" and the message was an affirmation of the exact phrasing I was using. The "receiver" misunderstood the phrase and thought he was conveying a negative message and was surprised I was happy to hear it. If he had given me his interpretation instead of or along with just the received message he would have terribly miscommunicated.
The idea that someone must just mindless accept anything someone else chooses to say as if a "word from God" is so deeply unBiblical!
As to healing, if someone is healed they are healed. If anyone wants to insist it was spontaneous healing that accidentally coincided with prayer for healing but prayer and God had nothing to do with it, what the heck, 9 of 10 lepers healed didn't bother to thank but that didn't negate the healing. God doesn't demand recognition, neither should anyone else. Recognizing God's involvement benefits us but doesn't affect either truth or God.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
What do you say is a miracle?
I used to go to a church that proclaimed miracles, such as someone who was blind being able to drive, or somebody being healed from cancer (he died). I don't go along with these sort of "miracles", because they seem to go along with God taking too much intervention into the world he made. I don't think that He works that way, and when people expect Him to it just diminishes their faith.
Of ccourse, occasionally miracles DO happen, as with the healing of the footballer Fabrice Muamba.
That in itself has led to more miracles, because people who wouldn't otherwise have cared have raised money for young people with heart problems. Defibrillation that would not have been there otherwise. Sadly too late for the poor boy who went to my son's school, but money was raised for anyone else who needed a defibrillator.
I have weak eyes, so I'm very keen to support those who work to improve people's sight. I've given several gifts to support sight saving operations, which I would say are miracles. such as people who have had cataract operations in remote parts of Africa. I have personally known so many people who have had cataract operations that I think it is so simple and such a gift, that helping somebody to see again IS a miracle.
--------------------
"...But I always want to know the things one shouldn’t do.”
“So as to do them?” asked her aunt.
“So as to choose,” said Isabel.
Henry James - The Portrait of A Lady
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I'm generally sceptical about so called miracles. However, a recent event made me sit up and take notice. My GP, a very skilled doctor was diagnosed with a tumour near his heart. He had all the scans- MRI, Pet scan etc and consulted several specialists. It was decided that he should undergo exploratory surgery to see if the tumour could be removed, but the prognosis wasn't good. He said goodbye to his patients and put his affairs in order. From the moment he entered hospital his whole church gathered in prayer. When the surgeon opened him up, there was no tumour to be found. The surgeon was amazed and searched around, but nothing there. My GP says that he was healed through prayer. There is no other explanation. I call this a miracle.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not until at least the same tests are done on the same equipment.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
"There is no other explanation"suggests to me that somebody is either claiming infallibility, or using bad logic. Lack of an explanation proves nothing, any more than an empty tomb does.
Doctors are forever
(a) Discovering new diseases.
(b) Discovering new cures.
(c) Being confounded by (i) their incomplete knowledge (ii) their diagnostic fallibility - even when it comes to signing death certificates - and (iii) the ability of some human minds and bodies to withstand and survive traumas that kill, maim or drive mad the vast majority of people who endure them.
"No other explanation comes to mind" is not the same as "There is no other explanation". In the cosmic scale of things, we don't understand a trillionth of the workings of our bodies and brains.
Something can be rare and wonderful enough to command our respect and wonder and admiration and thankfulness without - for many of us - resorting to speculations about the supernatural.
But "supernatural miracles" do fulfil, I think, a human need - though it's not one that I understand.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
pimple, this simply does not do justice to the actual situation.
Science is not - as many people seem to believe - simply a "flat" organisation of knowledge. It has a strong hierarchy for the truths it proposes. This is why, for example, when some neutrino experiment in Italy announces that they have found that neutrinos travel faster than light, the basically universal reaction of physicists (both theoretical and experimental) is to say "Well, what could have gone wrong with this experiment then?" Contrary to some naive ideas about "falsification", the basic reaction of scientists here is that the accepted theory almost certainly falsifies the experimental data. Why is that so? Because for various experimental and theoretical reasons the idea of a "light speed limit" is very high up in the hierarchy of physics truths, and it will take a lot more than just one problematic experiment to take it down from up there. To take a different example, Wolfgang Pauli postulated the existence of neutrinos simply as a mechanism to avoid the apparent violation of energy conservation in beta decays. There was exactly zero positive evidence for such a particle. All the experiment was saying is that energy was apparently not being conserved. It took 25 years for anybody to actually observe neutrinos. Still, energy conservation is close to untouchable in the mind of physicists, so inventing a completely hypothetical particle to maintain it was considered a stroke of genius, not madness.
In a similar way, the sort of healings that get proposed as "miraculous" are not simply in the "medically unexplained" category. They are not just ad odds with knowledge at the low levels of the medical truth hierarchy. They are at odds with the top levels of what medicine believes to know. In most cases, time is the key issue. Of course there could be all sorts of unknown physiological processes that might drive out disease and heal tissue. But all known physiology requires time to work, and typically a substantial amount of time at that. If you smack head forward into a beam and get a big swelling and a black eye, it is entirely natural that all this will disappear. Eventually. The swelling will subside, the bruise will fade. But that will not happen instantly, or even in seconds. It will take many hours, indeed days, for the natural processes to repair the damage and regrow what was destroyed. If your friend had just horribly bashed up his face, turned away, and turned back to you and his face had become perfectly fine and normal - then either you have been tricked initially, or a miracle occurred. There simply is nothing in medicine currently that suggests that physiology can be hurried along like that. This stands against top level medical truth.
What one could discuss is why say an object moving at more than light speed is less likely to be called a "miracle" than the basically instantaneous disappearance of a tumour. But I would suggest that it has to do with us actually being very certain in our knowledge about the entities of biology and medicine at the "top level" (for all the massive uncertainties at lower levels), whereas this is not the case for all entities of physics. Something like a neutrino is a very strange thing which we have great difficulty to pin down experimentally anyhow. If it turns out to do very weird stuff, we are inclined to revise physics at least with "exception clauses". But we have lots and lots of experience with things like faces, bruises and black eyes. "Instantaneous" just makes no sense there, at all. Hence we are willing to entertain the "miraculous" label. If tomorrow some church prayed a perpetual motion machine into existence, then we would have a similar case for a "miracle of physics"...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[...] In short, if you want to make new Christians, doing miracles is NOT the way to go. As Jesus told us.
Missed this on first pass, but as thread's been bumped, I'll field it now.
You make a perfectly good point about miracles creating fairweather Christians, but neither the Bible nor tradition is clear cut. Miracles are frequently portrayed as signs of God's power in early church hagiography, and the gospels/Acts. Testimonies from sincere and committed Christians routinely cite miracles as the catalyst in coming to faith in Jesus the Christ.
If modern Christians were able to follow the path of the apostles, and produce spectacular miracles on demand, would it not aid the Christian message? If any believer could routinely regenerate lost limbs, cure paralysis, and resurrect guests of the morgue, would it not give Christianity something of a PR boost?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It would be a freaking nightmare.
Look, spectacular miracles are an aid (a dubious one, but still) when you are working in a largely untouched mission field and you need a) credibility and b) buzz. The buzz is pretty self-explanatory. The credibility I'm referring to is not the straightforward "you did this and so I believe." Rather it's the "hey, looks like your god can take my god, maybe" power stuff that is sometimes necessary to get a foothold in a culture that is monolithic and has a very entrenched religious power structure. In other words, it gets your foot in the door--of the culture as a whole, not the door of individual people's hearts and lives. So Peter, Paul, Philip, etc. and various saints who were the first missionaries to untouched cultures--yeah. It could be a real help to them, particularly in times when word of mouth was your only publicity.
But note that even in those cases miracle workers saw far more cases where miracles DIDN'T happen than where they did. Paul, for instance, gets beat up quite a bit, has to leave Trophimus behind sick during his travels, and recommends wine to Timothy because of his frequent illnesses. He appears to find nothing unusual in a state of affairs where God did the occasional miracle through him yet normally refrained. Jesus, too, normally used a boat for his lake travels, and refrained from healing every sick person lying by the pool of Bethesda--as near as we can tell, he showed up, healed one guy, and slipped away.
What does this say to me? It says that those who are looking for miracles as a shortcut to avoid suffering or trouble are misguided. Miracles appear to have a different purpose (see the whole "signs" discussion in a zillion places on the Ship.) As ordinary people, we tend to think God should apply miracles to the worst pain and suffering cases, and we get indignant if he doesn't follow that seemingly obvious priority. Which means we have a lot of indignation to deal with, because he never did hand miracles out that way, even when he walked the earth as a man.
You mention Christians who cite miracles as the catalyst for their faith. Well, without them here to question, I can only guess, but I suspect they are giving you the short version of how they came to faith. After all, there are very few people in Western cultures with absolutely NO exposure to Christianity whatsoever--I was probably one of those with the least, and even I will tell you that there were occasional contacts (a Narnia book, my embarrassed mother's attempt to explain what Good Friday was) that doubtless had some influence, little though I realized it at the time. If someone is privileged to witness a miracle, that will naturally take center stage in their retelling of how they came to faith--and yet if you probed, I suspect you'd find small contacts preceding the miracle, probably for years.
Now, getting back to the question of a PR boost for modern Western Christianity--God forbid. Have you ever been in a church where the whole congregation (bar maybe 1%) are spiritual babies? I have. Dear Lord, I have. And really, I ought not to be calling them spiritual babies at all, since 9 out of 10 of them didn't stick. They came for the friendship, or for the food, or because they were bored and there was nothing else to do in St. Louis on a Sunday (that they could access, anyway). TOTAL FREAKING DISASTER. We had quarrels and fights and outright immorality. We had people behaving like toddlers on caffeine. And we did NOT have the manpower to disciple all these people, since there were like, two mature Christians among the lot? and we were run off our feet. Finally we begged another congregation to lend us some of their old people so we could get some stability before the whole boat capsized.
And that, my dear Byron, is what the churches would look like if modern Western Christians started routinely doing spectacular miracles.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To take a different example, Wolfgang Pauli postulated the existence of neutrinos simply as a mechanism to avoid the apparent violation of energy conservation in beta decays. There was exactly zero positive evidence for such a particle. All the experiment was saying is that energy was apparently not being conserved.
This is a total tangent - but why is "energy doesn't appear to be conserved" notevidence of a particle? It seems that Pauli considered it to be so. ("Wolfie, there's no evidence for such thing as neutrinos, you're crazy!" "No I'm not and yes there is, look at this energy deficit right here! See? Evidence!")
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I'll say this, Lamb Chopped, not only was that hilarious, it's one of the best justifications for infrequent miracles that I've seen! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As Christendom's done, and many Christians say that we're back in a mission situation, surely now would be time for limbs to sprout and morgues to empty? Just a few, on primetime, with impeccable medical documentation.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This is a total tangent - but why is "energy doesn't appear to be conserved" notevidence of a particle? It seems that Pauli considered it to be so. ("Wolfie, there's no evidence for such thing as neutrinos, you're crazy!" "No I'm not and yes there is, look at this energy deficit right here! See? Evidence!")
Why would an energy deficit be evidence for anything but an energy deficit? It is only if you assert that there cannot be an energy deficit, that an apparent energy deficit must be evidence for something else. But this assertion is not based on the experimental data itself. Indeed, the most natural interpretation of an energy deficit is simply that there is an energy deficit, and consequently that energy conservation has been experimentally falsified. I could alternatively hypothesise that the missing energy is used by the wood fairies to cool their kool-aid. Based on just this observation alone, that would be just as licit as Pauli going on about some mysterious "neutrino". (Actually, he confusingly called it a "neutron"; and the characterisation is not quite fair, since IIRC they actually had scatter data which did more to suggest an unobserved particle - but my point is one of principle here, not of the somewhat messier reality...) There are obviously reasons why Pauli did not consider the wood fairies, but did consider the production of a neutrino, but these are extrinsic to this particular piece of data.
To give an analogy: your bank calls you up because your account balance is deep in the red. You react by saying that an unknown and unobserved miscreant must have hacked your online account and syphoned off lots of money. Assuming that the bank for some reason (their server had a crash) cannot trace the relevant transactions, will they believe you? Only if they have a very strong belief in your financial reliability, only if the assume that you always keep your account balanced. Because the most likely explanation is surely that you simply have been spending above your means. (Note: my analogy is not about whether the bank could actually recover the debt from you by legal means in the absence of a transaction history in the real world...)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This is a total tangent - but why is "energy doesn't appear to be conserved" notevidence of a particle? It seems that Pauli considered it to be so. ("Wolfie, there's no evidence for such thing as neutrinos, you're crazy!" "No I'm not and yes there is, look at this energy deficit right here! See? Evidence!")
Why would an energy deficit be evidence for anything but an energy deficit? It is only if you assert that there cannot be an energy deficit, that an apparent energy deficit must be evidence for something else. But this assertion is not based on the experimental data itself. Indeed, the most natural interpretation of an energy deficit is simply that there is an energy deficit, and consequently that energy conservation has been experimentally falsified. I could alternatively hypothesise that the missing energy is used by the wood fairies to cool their kool-aid. Based on just this observation alone, that would be just as licit as Pauli going on about some mysterious "neutrino". (Actually, he confusingly called it a "neutron"; and the characterisation is not quite fair, since IIRC they actually had scatter data which did more to suggest an unobserved particle - but my point is one of principle here, not of the somewhat messier reality...)
I appreciate that you're trying to appeal to a principle, but I don't think you've established it here; by your standards, why would scattering data be evidence for anything but scattering data? What makes it (or other observations) so much stronger as evidence for a particle than an apparent violation of conservation of energy?
(As for your analogies - I rather doubt that anyone would have thought "as-yet unidentified particle particle carrying away energy" and "wood fairies" would really be considered equally valid explanations of the violation, even absent other data; or that the weight given to the principle of energy conservation can be considered somehow analogous my bank's non-existent reliance on my personal accounting skills.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not until at least the same tests are done on the same equipment.
I appreciate not wanting to jump on a bandwagon of enthusiasm for a specific claim that may or may not be real.
But in USA, insurance won't cover tests to prove non-existence of a tumor the surgeon said doesn't exist. The newly tumorless person would have to pay for all the tests out of his own pocket. In my town an MRI costs $4000. Frankly, it's not worth $4000 to me to have tests done that don't benefit me, that only provide information for strangers who are likely to reject the validity of the test report anyway. ("They must have done the test wrong", "they must have mixed up two patients' records", "I cant explain those test results but I still don't believe it." I've heard these and more.)
I have long wondered why we believe whatever we believe and what causes a person to change a belief. One friend says "we believe whatever makes us comfortable." A free online course I took (Emotional Intelligence, Case Western Reserve U, https://www.coursera.org/course/lead-ei) says emotions determine our beliefs, then we go find some facts to justify what we already believe.
Those who believe miracles don't happen will continue to not believe no matter what medical records they are offered. Those who do believe don't rely on (often non-existant anyway) medical records for that decision. The emotionally determined decision pre-determines the attitude toward "objective proof."
But more important, while I definitely believe in miracles (including but not limited to healing) and have seen and experienced several amazing ones, miracles is not God's primary message! Some people reject miracles and accept God, some reject God while accepting miracles. (Some reject or accept both). It's just not the issue.
I for one simply report what I have personally seen or experienced. Anyone may accept or reject or hold an undecided opinion about my report -- their choice, not my problem. "If you want me to believe it you have to..." Eh? None of my business whether you believe what I report or not, so no I don't have do [whatever]. [Whatever] most likely wouldn't change anyone's mind anyway.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'll say this, Lamb Chopped, not only was that hilarious, it's one of the best justifications for infrequent miracles that I've seen!
As Christendom's done, and many Christians say that we're back in a mission situation, surely now would be time for limbs to sprout and morgues to empty? Just a few, on primetime, with impeccable medical documentation.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) Glad you liked it. It's a lot more fun to look back on than it was to live it. I developed a huge sympathy for Paul etc. having to cope with the likes of the Corinthian church.
As for the mission situation, well, they're right, but what they aren't adding is that this is a post-Christian mission situation. We aren't starting from virgin paganism, if you get my drift. We're starting rather with a culture that was once married (or at least engaged) to Christianity, and is now divorced--with all the attendant baggage. That's going to make everything harder, particularly because Christianity has any number of real sins of our own, and we can't and shouldn't deny that. The ruin of the previous relationship was to a large extent of our own making. Mission 2.0 is going to have to acknowledge that honestly as it starts over. And I can't see how miracles, however well documented, are going to help that process. Far more likely to become a distraction and a snare, as we see already with all the freak miracle-a-minute televangelists out there now. Why should Christianity--real Christianity--do anything that creates a greater likeness between us and them? We catch enough crap already for our own sins without catching it for theirs.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[...] Those who believe miracles don't happen will continue to not believe no matter what medical records they are offered. Those who do believe don't rely on (often non-existant anyway) medical records for that decision. The emotionally determined decision pre-determines the attitude toward "objective proof." [...]
There's a third category who, with compelling evidence, would approach an unexplained event with an open mind.
I guess our difference would come in how we'd class it, and respond. Personally, I'd like to know the mechanism of action, to see if it could possibly be replicated to help others. Someone who regenerated a limb would be a medical marvel, and they should be rushed to the nearest lab for tests. Perhaps they've benefited from some genetic fluke that can be understood and harnessed?
"God did it," well, OK, but how?
Lamb Chopped, I find this pre-post Christendom split you've drawn real interesting. Perhaps you're right that the signs would need to change in the post-Christendom world. This is something that churches should really explore more, it's a fascinating concept, and could lead to some radical approaches to continuing the Christian tradition.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I appreciate that you're trying to appeal to a principle, but I don't think you've established it here; by your standards, why would scattering data be evidence for anything but scattering data? What makes it (or other observations) so much stronger as evidence for a particle than an apparent violation of conservation of energy?
"Scattering" is probably the wrong word (because it has a more specific meaning), "kink in the particle tracks" is what I was trying to say. And yes, that kink as such is just evidence of a kinkiness ![[Biased]](wink.gif) . But if I observes two effects (1. energy loss, and 2. kink in the particle track) and can explain that with one hypothesis (a neutrino was emitted, carrying away energy, and pushing the other particle off its path) then that is stronger than if I my hypothesis just explains one observation (energy loss).
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
(As for your analogies - I rather doubt that anyone would have thought "as-yet unidentified particle particle carrying away energy" and "wood fairies" would really be considered equally valid explanations of the violation, even absent other data; or that the weight given to the principle of energy conservation can be considered somehow analogous my bank's non-existent reliance on my personal accounting skills.)
These are frankly annoying misreadings. It was obviously intentional to consider "wood fairies" rather than say an "unknown force field" - namely in order to achieve the greatest possible distance between Pauli's hypothesis and the alternative one. And the point of that was to stress that is not the single experiment we are looking at which makes one hypothesis appear so much more reasonable than the other. Because that one experiment in fact can be explained equally by both. The reason why Pauli's hypothesis had mileage in the physics community are rather all those other experiments and theories of physics that make an unknown particle seem more probable than wood fairies. In Bayesian terms, it is not the likelihood that makes the difference here, but the prior. And this is important. The idea that an experiment shows (or falsifies) something is too simplistic. Without the background, the prior, that has been built up previously science gets nowhere. In consequence, it is near impossible for any one experiment to demonstrate that energy is not conserved. No matter what the data appears to say. Because that runs into a rock solid prior saying that energy in fact is conserved. A lot of theory and experiment has to start to point into the direction of a break before that prior will get overwhelmed by new evidence.
Furthermore, the point of my bank analogy obviously was not to equate the probabilities for you overdrawing your account to that of a break in energy conservation occurring. They are obviously not equal, that was not the point, and anyhow, that's not how analogies work (analogies work by similar structure and relationship, not by equal content). Once more the point was to illustrate the "Bayesian" approach science actually takes in practice. Only if energy conservation is pre-established as an (almost) "sine qua non", a super-strong prior, then the observation of an energy deficit suggests something unobserved. Because the most parsimonious solution of simply accepting that there is an energy deficit is then not available. Only if your bank believes super-strongly that you would never let your account go into the red, then your account actually being in the red becomes evidence for a hacker attack. Because the straightforward explanation that you have overspend is forbidden by this prior assumption. That a real world bank is unlikely to make such an assumptions is neither here nor there, I was simply couching the same scenario in everyday (more understandable) terms. The point was that the Sherlock Holmes principle is being applied there: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, the trouble with your miracle-rushed-to-the-lab example is that if you DO find a mechanism of some sort, it is by that very fact no longer a miracle, but rather it's a case of God working through an obscure natural law; which is perfectly fine by me, I've got nothing against that (particularly if they can replicate it on me when I'm ill!) but it's not a miracle.
On the other hand, if you get your alleged miracle tested six ways from Sunday and it's clearly real but you still can't account for it, well, you might just have the real thing there (a real miracle). Still, it's lovely for the person it helped, but it's no good to anybody else, is it?
Which is kind of a perverse way of saying "Wouldn't you rather find an interesting replicable useful fluke than an abso-honest-to-God-lute miracle?"
Me, I think I'd prefer the fluke. Because self-interest. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Just what I've said before: "miracle" is all a question of definition.
I've a minor medical fluke of my own: accident sliced open my left hand, severed the median nerve, lost sensation & movement in index finger. Got sewn up by an E.R. sawbones who didn't reattach the nerve. Somehow the axons leaped the gap, reinnervated the finger, and sensation/function are at 95%.
I'm sure I could trumpet this as a (rather pathetic) miracle. I suspect something more prosaic like the nerve ends slipping together, or the axons using the scar as a bridge. Either way, it happened, praise be, doubt I'll offer to give any televangelists the finger.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Most parts of the medical community have long given up on this notion. Christians often believe there is some kind of 'dialogue' between faith and science. In truth, there is no meaningful dialogue, science rejects (for good reason) the hocus pocus claims of magic that (admittedly only some) Christians continue to claim. Trying to stick to the OP, whenever there have been genuine scientific enquiries, no miracles have been proven (otherwise everyone would believe, at least, in supernatural healing and possibly even God). A reasonably good example of what happens when a doctor follows a Christian 'healing ministry' (of Kathryn Kuhlman) is Nolan, Healing: a Doctor in Search of Miracle. Not only was no one really getting healed, but she was actually harming people in both the short and long term. Nolan argues that, in at least one case, she exacerbated the death of one of her victims.
One of the main reasons I ran for my life away from Charismania is that so many Christians continue to delude their congregations with 'healing' lies. It is this fundamental kind of dishonesty that I find so upsetting.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I appreciate that you're trying to appeal to a principle, but I don't think you've established it here; by your standards, why would scattering data be evidence for anything but scattering data? What makes it (or other observations) so much stronger as evidence for a particle than an apparent violation of conservation of energy?
"Scattering" is probably the wrong word (because it has a more specific meaning), "kink in the particle tracks" is what I was trying to say. And yes, that kink as such is just evidence of a kinkiness . But if I observes two effects (1. energy loss, and 2. kink in the particle track) and can explain that with one hypothesis (a neutrino was emitted, carrying away energy, and pushing the other particle off its path) then that is stronger than if I my hypothesis just explains one observation (energy loss).
Thanks, this is helpful and seems entirely reasonable to me: (conservation of energy) plus (conservation of momentum) is stronger than just (conservation of energy). I was puzzled by your original statement that "There was exactly zero positive evidence for such a particle"; but if that was just imprecise language, fine. quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
(As for your analogies - I rather doubt that anyone would have thought "as-yet unidentified particle particle carrying away energy" and "wood fairies" would really be considered equally valid explanations of the violation, even absent other data; or that the weight given to the principle of energy conservation can be considered somehow analogous my bank's non-existent reliance on my personal accounting skills.)
These are frankly annoying misreadings.
An ever-present risk with analogies, I suppose.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Either way, it happened, praise be, doubt I'll offer to give any televangelists the finger.
I saw what you did there.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
