Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Medical science has just made the lame walk.

The achievement of the Polish/UK team is remarkable, but will such dramatic progress change how we think about miracles?

It's not the first time this has happened, of course. We've already conquered leprosy, and many of those who would've been blind can now see. But the image of people getting up and walking has a visual impact those achievements lack.

Miracles are taken as signs of God's power. A tangible manifestation of the hope that the world as it is can be transformed into world as it should be. If humanity, by its own efforts, can bring about gospel wonders, what role will the concept of miracles play?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If science moves into areas previously thought of as miraculous, to appeal, will religion have to adapt away from the supernatural model?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Honest Ron Bacardi, I couldn't agree more with yourself and itsarumdo that "miracle = suspension of natural law" is a later invention, although it's undoubtedly one that's gained currency.

Much belief in miracles isn't rooted in theological nuance, but wish-fulfillment: they promise to make the impossible possible.

Setting aside nations with a history of state communism, irreligion is highest in the Nordic countries, whose safety net fulfills many of the church's social functions. When life on earth gets better, interest in the beyond seems to decline. If science moves into areas previously thought of as miraculous, to appeal, will religion have to adapt away from the supernatural model?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
These days most people,(some privately), take the Bible miracle accounts with a large pinch of spiritual salt.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If you look at the BBC website, the picture of the man cured is someone who is still struggling to use his legs. I have access to medically documented healings (after prayer) where something rather more than that happened with absolutely no other intervention. [...]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
It will and it won't, if that makes sense. These days most people,(some privately), take the Bible miracle accounts with a large pinch of spiritual salt.

There is still a middle line religion can tread. Science increasingly seems to make our very existence miraculous, something beyond which can be neatly described as *natural*.

---

This is exactly what I had in mind. If medicine can make routine things traditionally thought of as miracles, the idea of miracles could change. For too long, among too many, there's been a (mostly unstated) competition between medicine and religion.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I first read this from Larry Niven, but I think it goes back to Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like a miracle to someone who doesn't understand it".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I first read this from Larry Niven, but I think it goes back to Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like a miracle to someone who doesn't understand it".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Yeah, Darek Fidyka's recovery is far from complete, but it's substantial, documented, and explicable. Same will go for those who follow in his footsteps. This is a bar that miracle claims have yet to meet.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I, too, am skeptical about most claims of miracles (even though I believe that they are possible), but doesn't what you say simply highlight the fact that it's a difference of definitions? If it's explicable or repeatable, it's science. If not, it may or may not be a miracle, but it certainly won't be written up in peer-reviewed journals as "we have no idea what happened" unless it can be studied because it's repeatable.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I first read this from Larry Niven, but I think it goes back to Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like a miracle to someone who doesn't understand it".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I, too, am skeptical about most claims of miracles (even though I believe that they are possible), but doesn't what you say simply highlight the fact that it's a difference of definitions? If it's explicable or repeatable, it's science. If not, it may or may not be a miracle, but it certainly won't be written up in peer-reviewed journals as "we have no idea what happened" unless it can be studied because it's repeatable.

---

Yup, much of it is down to definition. A simplistic "miracle = impossible" definition gets pushed back with each advance in medical science. Same problem doesn't afflict "miracle = sign," but that lacks the popular appeal of the other concept.

A medical journal wouldn't say, "we've no idea what happened," but would be all over, say, a verifiable example spontaneous CNS regeneration, if only to point to future lines of investigation.

---

If only. There are plenty of examples of spontaneous nerve regeneration out there in the public domain. Take a look at Mitchell May, who regenerated nerves, blood vessels and bone joints in his lower legs. It's all fully documented (though not if you read websites which just deny that the documentation exists). I don't see a medical research department all over him. Nope. Far too big to believe. And the smaller stuff is too small to bother with.

The responses here are not untypical of medical researchers, in that there is a general willingness to disbelieve. To assume that whoever these things were reported to happen to were excessively credulous. That it can't happen at all. One of the first things invoked - again we see it here - is an immediate dismissal of the ability of an individual to make a rational assessment of their situation, and a simultaneous lack of curiosity as to the details of how that assessment came to be made, or the process that occurred.

AITIWACWS

And that word "Miracle" so happily trotted off for a minor advance in drugs or surgery - at the same time can be used to dismiss something as "impossible" by inference. Equivalent to the face of Jesus on a piece of pizza.

When doctors do become truly interested in these phenomena, first it will be necessary to find a way to investigate it scientifically outside the constraints of the current DBPCT dogma. They will also inevitably meet abusive criticism from peers who have no stomach for the Divine. And also from peers whose religion insists that these things are contrary to the will of God. Or just plain impossible - from peers who have predetermined Gods scope of practice and capability and willingness to act.

So - yes - it will happen, but not through the current one size fits all research methodology used by modern medicine, and not without a lot of controversy and disinformation and abuse. Probably in Brazil or Venezuela or Kenya or some similar place within the next 10 years. Then forced to publish through the PLOS network because it will all be too much for mainstream medical ournals for several years, and the authors will be unreliable foreigners from outside the UK/USA medical hegemony.

When we see the first integrated hospital, it will attract almost no media interest for a few years because the mainstream media outlets will not be capable of putting out a WYSIWYG story, and most of the alternative outlets outside woo woo new age mags will not be able to fit it into their secular environmentalist reader profile. I pray that my cynicism is unfounded - in many ways it is becoming necessary to believe that the world can begin to do things differently with a greater sense of heart.

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Writing looks like a miracle to those who have never seen it. Someone speaks, and someone else makes marks on a piece of paper. This piece of paper is handed to someone who was not present to hear the spoken words; he repeats the original words.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
It will and it won't, if that makes sense. These days most people,(some privately), take the Bible miracle accounts with a large pinch of spiritual salt.

There is still a middle line religion can tread. Science increasingly seems to make our very existence miraculous, something beyond which can be neatly described as *natural*.

---

This is exactly what I had in mind. If medicine can make routine things traditionally thought of as miracles, the idea of miracles could change. For too long, among too many, there's been a (mostly unstated) competition between medicine and religion.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see any competition at all between medicine and miracles, and I don't think most Christians do. Similarly, I don't see how a medical advancement undermines in any way the miracles found in the Bible or those that can be verified since. If someone is able to spontaneously recover from a disease or disability w/o medical intervention that's still miraculous, even if the same end could be achieved now. Especially since those medical interventions would not have been available in the 1st c.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo
There are plenty of examples of spontaneous nerve regeneration out there in the public domain. Take a look at Mitchell May, who regenerated nerves, blood vessels and bone joints in his lower legs.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If medicine can make routine things traditionally thought of as miracles, the idea of miracles could change. For too long, among too many, there's been a (mostly unstated) competition between medicine and religion.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm with the rest of youse guys. If medical science can find a way to heal the blind, deaf, paralyzed, whatever, then rah rah RAH! and I'll raise a beer to medical science. But it has crap-all to do with the miracles of the Bible. It doesn't invalidate them. It doesn't even relate to them.

As said above, the miracles of the Bible are signs--they have a divine purpose in mind, whether that's to demonstrate God's truth and power, or to identify Jesus as the Messiah, or what have you. They are not cases of God just waking up and saying, "Hey, it's a lovely day, I'll just go out and suspend natural law for grins and giggles." There is nothing random about them. They serve a purpose. And when there is no such purpose to be served, the miracles tend to be (sadly ) absent. (Which is IMHO the reason why Christians in already-heavily Christianized cultures rarely see miracles, while the mission field does--but I digress.)

Anyway. For the same reason it does not disturb me if someone gets hold of a time machine, goes back in time with the latest fantastical gizmowhatchamacallit, and proves that some of Jesus' miracles relied on a then-unknown property of the human body/brain etc. I mean, hello? The point was not to do magic tricks, it was to identify himself as the very same God who gives healing, calms storms, multiplies food, etc. every single blessed day. In the miraculous signs, Jesus did "up close and personal" what you can see God doing through slower natural processes all the time. In those slower processes we can see to some extent what is going on--the cycle of growth and chemical change within a grapevine that creates sugar, which micro-organisms can act on later to turn into alcohol, for example; but whether fast or slow, it is the same God bringing the water-into-wine process about. So also with healing etc. The only miracles I can think of at the moment that do NOT have corresponding long, natural processes associated with them are the raising of the dead, and walking on water. And both of those exist to show that God is not only the God of Nature (which, without those signs, someone might easily think), but the God who is above Nature and who can countermand it if he wishes. Not that he usually does so wish!

So yeah, I really hope science finds a way to duplicate the effects of Jesus' miracles, not just in general principle but in speed and perfection as well. But if that ever happens, it will be a happy day for humanity, but still basically irrelevant to what's going on in Scripture.

---

All this.



--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
The basic problem with 'miracles' is that they are so often the product of a "God of the Gaps" theology: i.e. bringing in God as the 'explanation' of what we don't understand.

And that is an utterly disastrous way of proceeding. The Gaps are rapidly closing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I first read this from Larry Niven, but I think it goes back to Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like a miracle to someone who doesn't understand it".

---

Writing looks like a miracle to those who have never seen it.
Someone speaks, and someone else makes marks on a piece of paper. This piece of paper is handed to someone who was not present to hear the spoken words; he repeats the original words.

Moo

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I think miracles of the 'that's impossible' type are a failure to understand the Incarnation. They look for God in a breaking in, and a breaking of the rules rather than in the wonder of life. Scientific 'miracles' probably tend to do the reverse. They underline the marvels of life.

Because 'that's impossible' type miracles look for God outside everything normal, they have an appeal for people who feel dismayed by life. Medical and technological advances and education and all such good things tend, I would guess, to reduce the need to look for an outside the box God.

---

Exactly what I was getting at, thanks.

Lamb Chopped, I agree with all you say about signs (which is why I included that definition in the OP). What I was getting at was how miracles will be popularly thought of in light of scientific advances, and what the church chooses to emphasize in light of this.

Mousethief, I'm not equating the actions of medicine and miracle. I'm looking at perceptions.

Palimpsest, before the surgery, guy had an inch-wide gap in his spinal cord, and after months of intensive phisio, no voluntary movement or sensation whatsoever. Treatment's not passed the medical hurdles, and rightly so, but I'd say that in this case its efficacy's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
The basic problem with 'miracles' is that they are so often the product of a "God of the Gaps" theology: i.e. bringing in God as the 'explanation' of what we don't understand.

And that is an utterly disastrous way of proceeding. The Gaps are rapidly closing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
The basic problem with 'miracles' is that they are so often the product of a "God of the Gaps" theology: i.e. bringing in God as the 'explanation' of what we don't understand.

And that is an utterly disastrous way of proceeding. The Gaps are rapidly closing.

---

Well, two issues here

1. if a phenomenon is closely connected temporally and experientially to a prayer, then empirically we have a clear causality. The fact that it is "inexplicable" is more to do with human ignorance and ego than being a problem per se.

2. God of the Gaps is closing... Alas, science continuously finds that it does not know - even in apparently well worn territory. The end of science has been predicted for some time, and we're still waiting - though I admit that there are no people wandering round London with billboards on their backs proclaiming "The End of Science is Nigh!!"

And certainly not for the biological sciences. The "hard problem" of consciousness remains a hard problem, unless one discounts personal experience as being "illusory and unreliable". This is philosophically equivalent to stating that the shadows on the cave wall must be real pohenomena of themselves, and probably an artefact of dancing candle light.

If you like God of the Gaps stuff, have a go at excplaining this

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

Other than, as Laplace would say, there being no need of the God hypothesis to explain biochemistry. Proponents of that hypothesis have to explain why the "intelligent designer" is so good at designing things like dengue fever or for that matter Ebola. "Mindless" evolution has the advantage of not being cruel since its "mindless".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

quote:

---

...

If you like God of the Gaps stuff, have a go at excplaining this

---

Great video. I guess you mean explain biochemistry?
The wonders of Nature are used a lot to point to something beyond just the material.
But why didn't you choose this video from the same source?
Dengue
Other than, as Laplace would say, there being no need of the God hypothesis to explain biochemistry. Proponents of that hypothesis have to explain why the "intelligent designer" is so good at designing things like dengue fever or for that matter Ebola. "Mindless" evolution has the advantage of not being cruel since its "mindless".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

Other than, as Laplace would say, there being no need of the God hypothesis to explain biochemistry. Proponents of that hypothesis have to explain why the "intelligent designer" is so good at designing things like dengue fever or for that matter Ebola. "Mindless" evolution has the advantage of not being cruel since its "mindless".

---

Now we're segueing into the Christus victor thread and our sidebar re: Greg Boyd's
explanation of natural evil.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

quote:

---

...

If you like God of the Gaps stuff, have a go at excplaining this

---

Great video. I guess you mean explain biochemistry?
The wonders of Nature are used a lot to point to something beyond just the material.
But why didn't you choose this video from the same source?
Dengue
Other than, as Laplace would say, there being no need of the God hypothesis to explain biochemistry. Proponents of that hypothesis have to explain why the "intelligent designer" is so good at designing things like dengue fever or for that matter Ebola. "Mindless" evolution has the advantage of not being cruel since its "mindless".

---

I was thinking more of the rotating motor of the mitochondria in terms of evolutionary theory, and also the massive integration of intelligent action - the idea that science can fill in all the gaps just for one cell and then fill in all the gaps for a colony of billions of cells is somewhat - optimistic. The XVIVO films are amazing, but have the one problem that they have to show processes clearly - so have to ignore the fact that there is only about 30% free space between organelles. Furthermore, this space is so small that the water is not water (as depicted in the video - marvellous free- floating movements) - but rather there is NO free water - there is instead a quasi-crystalline gel, with an absolutely minimum effective viscosity of 4. So all this happy swimming around depicted is just - impossible according to a more advanced than schoolbook fluid mechanics. Which brings us to another God of the Gaps problem - there are very very few scientists capable of encompassing all of the (so far) known processes sufficiently well to be able to integrate them in their intellectual model.

I'm not using this btw to point to something beyond the natural world, but rather to point out the self-limitations of a purely reductive scientific method.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Fag packet please.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

Other than, as Laplace would say, there being no need of the God hypothesis to explain biochemistry. Proponents of that hypothesis have to explain why the "intelligent designer" is so good at designing things like dengue fever or for that matter Ebola. "Mindless" evolution has the advantage of not being cruel since its "mindless".

---

Now we're segueing into the Christus victor thread and our sidebar re: Greg Boyd's
explanation of natural evil.

---

Took me a while to read that other thread.
So denge fever is the devil's spawn?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Fag packet please.

---

Understanding this is a huge cross-pond difference, that phrase is just so massively offensive from an American pov that I cannot respond to it. Sorry.

---

'Fag packet' means composed or performed quickly and without detailed analysis or research.

So I Googled it and found no offensive connotation. Then I Googled 'fag packet US' - nothing.



--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
[QUOTE]...

... "Mindless" evolution has the advantage of not being cruel since its "mindless".

---

I was thinking more of the rotating motor of the mitochondria ......

---

The problem with all "God of the gaps" arguments is not that there are no gaps. Is that the gaps tend to be filled, and usually faster that the naysayers expect. There used to be a gap in our understanding of genetics until DNA was found for example. Or infectious diseases or mental illness.
There are many examples of things that now have scientific explanations that were used as an example of the limits of science in the past.
Can you find an example of the reverse ever happening?

And you did not answer my question about Dengue. Does that infection mechanism have a 'supernatural" explanation? My argument was that even if we never find materialist explanations for those mechanisms you still have a problem if you postulate supernatural ones.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
itsarumgo, I'm calling bullshit on this claim that you access to a provable miracle. Prove it. There have been doctors and scientists and scholars who have been interested in finding a scientifically verifiable healing for decades—there is not a single verifiable faith healing. Dr. William Nolan (deceased) wrote a very readable and seminal book in terms of writing a medical book about 'miracle' cures. The book is Healing—a Doctor in Search of a Miracle. Needless to say, he doesn't find any. Like every other person who has taken a controlled scientific approach to faith healing, they found no verifiable cases at all. More than that, he found that in some cases 'healing' services and 'healing' preachers actually exacerbated their illnesses and in at least one of the cases he looked at, hastened someone's death.

If you're willing to prove a supernatural act, you can also collect the $1M in prize money from the James Randi Foundation.

Good luck with your provable miracle!

K.

---