Miracles

[Gerben42]

Rather than hijacking a messy climate change thread, I'll start my own. At some point I responded to a question about miracles. My observation is: The only miracles are lucky coincidences (for example saving many Chinese miners).

 

Another poster said he believed in real miracles, and referred to the life of "Padre Pio". Of course, stigmata is not a miracle and are not caused by praying or living a pious life, although the evidence suggests that many inflict themselves with such wounds in order to relive the wounds of Christ.

 

If it were, the wounds would not be in the hand palms but at the wrists (you cannot attach someone to a cross supporting them by nails through the hand palms). The fact that the wounds follow the anatomically incorrect depiction on statues and depictions of Christ is a warning sign that something else is going on.

[PassedOut]

My observation is: The only miracles are lucky coincidences (for example saving many Chinese miners).

Sure, but a lot of folks convince themselves otherwise and aren't about to change.

 

One older man I worked with in a large company had previously been a protestant minister in some denomination or other. Nice guy, socially responsible. During a visit to his home, he brought out and had me look at the dissertation he had written to get his doctorate in divinity.

 

It was about angels. I'm seldom at a loss for words, but it took me a few seconds to frame a friendly comment.

[jjbrr]

 

$@*#ing magnets, how do they work?

[phil_20686]

you cannot attach someone to a cross supporting them by nails through the hand palms. The fact that the wounds follow the anatomically incorrect depiction on statues and depictions of Christ is a warning sign that something else is going on.

Lets be clear, this is often said, but we don't know for sure where they put the nails. It was demonstrated by a National Geographic Documentary that you can suspend a human body by the palms. Particularly if you either nail the feet to the sides of the upright or include a foot rest.

 

You can see some details of nail placement here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifiction#Nail_placement

 

Only one archeogical find of a person crucified by a roman has ever been found. In the phillippenes some cahtolics crucify themselves non lethally for short periods as an extreme form of devotion, and they use thin nails through the palms.

 

 

Re Padre Pio, his stigmata were examined extensively and often. They bled copiously, and yet he never suffered any ill effects (although his health was poor throughout his life, from well before the he had the stigmata). The stigmata and the blood came with an associated sweet fragrance. His wounds never became infected, despite being open for more than a decade. On at least one occasion they vanished completely, with no scarring of any kind being visible, before returning. When he died they vanished, his body showing no scarring. Any natural and repeated wounds lead to hardening of the skin due to the formation of scar tissue, but his hands, feet, and chest were reported to be unblemished on death, as can be seen in burial photos.

 

In short, there was much evidence that they were mystical in origin, and no reason to suspect a man who devoted his life to helping the poor was in anyway unbalanced or mentally ill, or any evidence that he intentiaonally attempted to defraud people. His letters offer more support for the proposition that he was not faking them, since he appears to be embarrassed and confused by his stigmata.

 

 

PS: I am perfectly prepared to have this discussion, but lets keep the tone civilised. Only 3 posts down and already the tone is getting a little fraught. I do not appreceate the apparent implication that people who beleive in miracles are necessarily ignorant B)

[bid_em_up]

...although the evidence suggests that many inflict themselves with such wounds in order to relive the wounds of Christ.

 

If it were, the wounds would not be in the hand palms but at the wrists (you cannot attach someone to a cross supporting them by nails through the hand palms).

lol, oh really?

 

Maybe you want to tell that to "Ruben Enaje, 48, was nailed to the cross in San Pedro Cutud for the 23rd year" along with the video showing him being nailed to a cross by the palms of his hands.

 

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ed5_1239493030&c=1

[Winstonm]

I confess I had no idea who Padre Pio was, but while reading through his bio on Wikepedia the thought occurred to me that the impact of early childhood religious abuse was a more likely cause of his hysteria than any divinity.

 

The hagiographers say that it was during this time, together with his physical illness, that inexplicable phenomena began to occur. According to their stories, one could hear strange noises coming from his room at night - sometimes screams or roars. During prayer, brother Pio remained in a stupor, as if he were absent.

 

One of Pio's fellow brothers claims to have seen him in ecstasy, levitating above the ground

 

I don't think it is stupid to believe - but I do think it is naive in the sense of wanting to believe, and thus disregarding the more unlikely events as the levitation scene above.

 

It also paints a different picture when contrary pertinent opinion is excluded. An honest discussion of the miracles of Padre Pio IMO should include this:

 

The founder of Milan's Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, friar, physician and psychologist Agostino Gemelli, concluded Padre Pio was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity."[15]

 

A somewhat opposing point of view.

[kenberg]

Miracles?

Assuming that a miracle must in some manner involve some sort of god or divine being, then of course I do not believe. I can hardly contemplate divine intervention if I don't believe in a Divine Being. It seems to me that some religious people believe in miracle, some do not. At least within the religious world view it is a logical possibility. Some religions, Christianity is one, have at least one miracle as a fundamental part of their faith. But for a non-religious person it seems to me that the question is answered in an earlier chapter of a statement of principles.

 

Do I claim an open mind? Not really, or only in the sense that I acknowledge that on any subject at all it is of course possible that I am wrong. I go with what seems right. What else?

[phil_20686]

I confess I had no idea who Padre Pio was, but while reading through his bio on Wikepedia the thought occurred to me that the impact of early childhood religious abuse was a more likely cause of his hysteria than any divinity.

There is no evidence that he was hysterical. You have simply concluded that he must be based on your pre determined belief that miracles don't happen.

 

 

One miracle is neither more nor less likely than another. By definition they represent a suspension of what is physically possible by the command of God. If one beleives that God created the rules and is omnipitent, clearly he can break teh rules in whatever fashion he chooses. That is precisely what one is looking for: Evidence that the normal rules of medicine, physics or science do not apply. Discounting evidence that appears to violate physical norms is to rule out precisely the thing that you have set out to find.

 

 

Also, I don't think that it paints a different picture. Man was beleived to be a saint. At least one person didnt like him. Shocking. I have heard expressed by many the opinion that mother Teresa was an ignorant women who did little real good and would have been better off founding a family planning clinic than producing "an anti-abortion rant" when she received her nobel peace prize. Truly holy people are often hated purely because people don't like what they stand for.

 

As to the charge of self mutilation, the photos of his wounds and the photos of his funeral represent a convincing argument against that. You could not mutilate yourself continuesly for 50 odd years and have it heal without a scar. It isnt possible.

[Winstonm]

Phil,

 

You are saying my bias caused me to draw the conclusion that Pio most likely suffered from a neurological disorder? From Wikepedia:

 

He claimed that by the time he was five years old he had already taken the decision to dedicate his entire life to God.

He is also said to have begun inflicting penances on himself and to have been chided on one occasion by his mother for using a stone as a pillow and sleeping on the stone floor

It is claimed by his mother that Francesco was able to see and speak with Jesus, the Virgin Mary and his guardian angel, and that as a child, he assumed that all people could do so

.

As a youth Pio claimed to have experienced heavenly visions and ecstasies.

 

I would venture the early Pio had more in common with Son of Sam than Son of God.

[awm]

There are many billions of people in the world. It stands to reason that some very unlikely things will happen to a few of these people (law of large numbers and all that). Of course, when these very unlikely things happen the world news media is likely to report it in one way or another, whereas the many cases where totally normal expected things happened do not get reported.

 

So yes, I suppose that miraculous things happen... by sheer random chance. However, these "miracles" have very little predictive power -- others (even others with comparable religious faith or whatever) are not able to duplicate the events.

 

Perhaps another way to look at it is, most months someone wins the lottery. Since a high percentage of people (in the USA anyway) believe in God, it is likely that the person who wins the lottery prayed for it and will thank God for the miracle which has changed his or her life. With that said, many millions of people who played the lottery (and many of whom also believe in God and prayed to win it) did not win. Buying lottery tickets and praying for a miracle is really not an effective way to make money. Of course, the news media will interview the person who won the big jackpot and will not interview the millions of people who played, prayed, and lost.

[Winstonm]

Phil,

 

It looks to me as though you have also cherry-picked the story to match your beliefs - but I am sure we all do that to some extent. ;) But to me, this:

 

At Padre Pio's death in 1968, his body appeared unwounded, with no sign of scarring. There was even a report that doctors who examined his body found it empty of all blood.[34]

 

casts more doubts on the truthfulness of the entire post-morten examination than it says about miracles.

[luke warm]

PS: I am perfectly prepared to have this discussion, but lets keep the tone civilised. Only 3 posts down and already the tone is getting a little fraught. I do not appreceate the apparent implication that people who beleive in miracles are necessarily ignorant :)

maybe this time it will be different

I would venture the early Pio had more in common with Son of Sam than Son of God.

oops, i guess not

Phil,

 

It looks to me as though you have also cherry-picked the story to match your beliefs - but I am sure we all do that to some extent.   ;)

ns?

But to me, this:

At Padre Pio's death in 1968, his body appeared unwounded, with no sign of scarring. There was even a report that doctors who examined his body found it empty of all blood.[34]

casts more doubts on the truthfulness of the entire post-morten examination than it says about miracles.

the first part of the quote "... his body appeared unwounded, with no sign of scarring." is stated as as fact... the second part, "... there was even a report ..." is not...

[Winstonm]

If one beleives that God created the rules and is omnipitent, clearly he can break teh rules in whatever fashion he chooses.

 

If he can break rules, why didn't he dispense with punishment for original sin?

 

This is possibly an interesting conundrum, as it gets to the heart of one of the atheist arguments - you claim that an omnipotent God must be able to break the rules he creates, but if he cannot create a rule even he cannot break, how can he be considered omnipotent?

[Winstonm]

the first part of the quote "... his body appeared unwounded, with no sign of scarring." is stated as as fact... the second part, "... there was even a report ..." is not...

 

A statement of fact woud be: the body was unwounded.

The body appeared unwounded is not stating fact. Uri Geller appeared to bend spoons. Does that mean the spoon really bent?

Another statement of fact: there was a report

 

 

I would venture the early Pio had more in common with Son of Sam than Son of God.

oops, i guess not

 

Sarcasm about a young child seeing visions is being nasty?

[Lobowolf]

Phil,

 

It looks to me as though you have also cherry-picked the story to match your beliefs - but I am sure we all do that to some extent. ;) But to me, this:

 

At Padre Pio's death in 1968, his body appeared unwounded, with no sign of scarring. There was even a report that doctors who examined his body found it empty of all blood.[34]

 

casts more doubts on the truthfulness of the entire post-morten examination than it says about miracles.

While I agree with your beliefs on the subject, this notion is sort of emblematic of a catch-22. If it's consistent with our beliefs about the physical world, it's not miraculous; if it's not, it probably didn't happen.

[PassedOut]

While I agree with your beliefs on the subject, this notion is sort of emblematic of a catch-22. If it's consistent with our beliefs about the physical world, it's not miraculous; if it's not, it probably didn't happen.

Agreed. Believing or not believing these things is a kind of chasm that few people cross.

 

That's just the way things are, but what does it really matter in the long run anyway? If it makes people feel better to believe in miracles, that's fine, so long as they don't bother others who disagree.

[Winstonm]

Phil,

 

It looks to me as though you have also cherry-picked the story to match your beliefs - but I am sure we all do that to some extent.   ;)  But to me, this:

 

At Padre Pio's death in 1968, his body appeared unwounded, with no sign of scarring. There was even a report that doctors who examined his body found it empty of all blood.[34]

 

casts more doubts on the truthfulness of the entire post-morten examination than it says about miracles.

While I agree with your beliefs on the subject, this notion is sort of emblematic of a catch-22. If it's consistent with our beliefs about the physical world, it's not miraculous; if it's not, it probably didn't happen.

Good point.

 

It appears to me that a believer assumes what we might call a +1 position and a non-believer a -1 position. The question then becomes which side has the greater burden of proof? I say it is on the side who makes the most extraordinary claim.

[Jlall]

My observation is: The only miracles are lucky coincidences (for example saving many Chinese miners).

This is obv but well said.

 

There are many billions of people in the world. It stands to reason that some very unlikely things will happen to a few of these people (law of large numbers and all that).

 

This is also obv but well said.

[Winstonm]

Lets be clear, this is often said, but we don't know for sure where they put the nails.

 

Then how can we know that the stigmata accurately reflected real wounds rather than simply reflecting idealizations of wound positions and type?

[Phil]

I think this is flame bait, but there aren't a lot of bridge players who read this who will grab the hook except Jimmy.

 

I tend to agree with all of this, however, I also think that there are many unexplained things in this world that we don't have a clue about.

[PassedOut]

I tend to agree with all of this, however, I also think that there are many unexplained things in this world that we don't have a clue about.

For sure. And if folks get comfort from classifying those unexplained things as miracles, what purpose is served by disputing the matter?

[luke warm]

It appears to me that a believer assumes what we might call a +1 position and a non-believer a -1 position. The question then becomes which side has the greater burden of proof? I say it is on the side who makes the most extraordinary claim.

i once took part in a debate on "does God exist?" ... my opponent took the stance you just took and his opening statement was something like, "the burden of proof is not on me and i will provide no argument against, it is the proponent's duty to prove his case" (paraphrased)... i countered with, "God exists because i say so"... i won the "debate" - the shortest i've ever been a part of - 5 to 0

 

the point is, both sides of a question have an equal responsibility, regardless of how it appears to you - at least in the eyes of most fair-minded judges

[Winstonm]

It appears to me that a believer assumes what we might call a +1 position and a non-believer a -1 position.  The question then becomes which side has the greater burden of proof?  I say it is on the side who makes the most extraordinary claim.

i once took part in a debate on "does God exist?" ... my opponent took the stance you just took and his opening statement was something like, "the burden of proof is not on me and i will provide no argument against, it is the proponent's duty to prove his case" (paraphrased)... i countered with, "God exists because i say so"... i won the "debate" - the shortest i've ever been a part of - 5 to 0

 

the point is, both sides of a question have an equal responsibility, regardless of how it appears to you - at least in the eyes of most fair-minded judges

I think that is reasonable. Still, it seems to me the one attempting to prove the +1 position has the burden of proof, whereas the -1 position only has to disprove those claims. In other words, the -1 is offering a refutation, not a claim.

 

In the debate you mentioned, how can one prove the negative that there is no god? That is why I say the burden of proof is on the +1 claim; although I agree the opposite side must refute the claims, I do not understand a refutation to be the same thing as a burden to prove.

[luke warm]

It appears to me that a believer assumes what we might call a +1 position and a non-believer a -1 position.  The question then becomes which side has the greater burden of proof?  I say it is on the side who makes the most extraordinary claim.

i once took part in a debate on "does God exist?" ... my opponent took the stance you just took and his opening statement was something like, "the burden of proof is not on me and i will provide no argument against, it is the proponent's duty to prove his case" (paraphrased)... i countered with, "God exists because i say so"... i won the "debate" - the shortest i've ever been a part of - 5 to 0

 

the point is, both sides of a question have an equal responsibility, regardless of how it appears to you - at least in the eyes of most fair-minded judges

I think that is reasonable. Still, it seems to me the one attempting to prove the +1 position has the burden of proof, whereas the -1 position only has to disprove those claims. In other words, the -1 is offering a refutation, not a claim.

 

In the debate you mentioned, how can one prove the negative that there is no god? That is why I say the burden of proof is on the +1 claim; although I agree the opposite side must refute the claims, I do not understand a refutation to be the same thing as a burden to prove.

it isn't necessarily about proving something, it's about providing logical, non-fallacious, argument for or against... you might not be able to prove that God does not exist and i might not be able to prove (to your satisfaction) that he does, but our arguments for and against the question can be judged

[phil_20686]

It appears to me that a believer assumes what we might call a +1 position and a non-believer a -1 position.  The question then becomes which side has the greater burden of proof?  I say it is on the side who makes the most extraordinary claim.

Its true, that in the case of miracles, the burden of proof is on those who say that miracles exists, because our day to day expereince is that normal things happen.

 

The same does not apply in the atheist vs theist case, as a the goal is to show that your assumptions lead to a better description of life/the universe, as a whole, and a priori it can not be said to be more "likely" or not that God exists - that is precisely what you are there to argue about. Moreover, there are a million ways to skin a cat in that particular argument. Arguments that atheism cannot be true, arguments that there are aspects of our eexisitence that atheism is incapable of explaining. Arguments that Atheism is not logically consistent, are just as valid strtategies as trying to "prove" that God exists.

 

The law of numbers only refers to those things that are "within the realm of possiblility". Science makes some things impossible just as it makes other things possible. It is possible that cancer can go into regression and that you can suffer a complete healing. It is not possible for an 8 inch tunour to dissapear in a single day. It is possible to create the illusion of levitation, it is not possible to actually levitate. Evidence of anything that science deems to be impossible === evidence that sceince's lawas were broken===evidence of a miracle.

 

Re the other things, you have to open your mind a little bit. Suppose that there is a 5 year old who really did see a vision of God. Was asked to serve Him all the days of his life, and to preach the good news. He would definately "appear" hysterical, and as awm pointed out there are a certain number of hsyterical persons every year who claim to see visions and are (presumeably) mistaken. Apparently every year 6 people claim to be the Second Coming of JC. Clearly, claiming to have seen a vision of God =/= convincing evidence. How would God help people defferentiate between genuine disciples and frauds? By doing miracles. See for example mark 16:17-18. If anyone claims to have seen God the first assumption is always that he is deluded, whether you beleive or not. It is more likely, but that does not mean that it is universally true.

 

WRT awm, talking about the predictive power of miracles is a bit bizarre, if miracles exist they represent always an act of free will on the part of God. Free will is always unpredictable. To claim that because someone is Holy they Must work miracles is to but a constraint on God. The revrese subset might be true, that all miracle workers are necessarily holy, but I dont really beleive that either. If God works miracles he does so for his own reasons and for his own ends. Generally 3 criteria are necessary to be recognised as a saint (1) conspicous holiness, (2) miracles and (3) good fruits, and the Cathlic church is generally pretty suspicious of apparent saints. Hence the poor treatement of Padre Pio by the church hierarchy. This is the norm for rather obvious reasons.

 

Anyway, the point of my ratehr than meandering post was to discount the accounts of miracles on account that he appears hysterical is precisely wrongheaded, its the existence of miracles which is the only way that you know that he wasnt hysterical.