Dick Smith Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I give up. Irrationality rules, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris pp Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The fact that you haven't experienced something Dick or that it doesn't fit your particular world view doesn't make it irrational, just your view. People in modern physics happily talk about 12 dimensions, dark matter and goodness knows what else, I haven't seen it and nor have they but it doesn't make it irrational and arguably it's all down to the way our human machine constructs the universe for us. A two dimensional creature would find it very strange if a three dimensional object passed through its "field of activity".It always seems a bit of a miracle to me that this lot came about in the first place, to the point where a tiny planet has developed a system which functions remarkably well by life forms consuming each other.Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaligoBay Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I'm sure that these strange things do happen, because after all we don't know everything about our universe yet. Far from it.What bothers me is the irrationality and unpredictability and favouritism of a God who would heal some and not others. It suggests that some of His creations are more equal than others. And if He is a God who intervenes, then presumably He put the tumour there in the first place, so it gets even weirder. I've had this offered to me as a "solace" in times of need by Christians, btw, I know this exists - God deliberately sends you suffering to toughen you up, like tempering steel in the fire. It's a kind of sick logic as far as I'm concerned. If normal parents acted like this it would be called abuse. Let me stick a few pins in you, son, so you know what suffering means.(This has nothing to do with anyone's belief in God, btw. That is way too personal to comment on.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaligoBay Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote user="chris pp"]It always seems a bit of a miracle to me that this lot came about in the first place, to the point where a tiny planet has developed a system which functions remarkably well by life forms consuming each other.[/quote]Try Richard Dawkins, he'll soon convice you otherwise! [;)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote user="chris pp"]It always seems a bit of a miracle to me that this lot came about inthe first place, to the point where a tiny planet has developed asystem which functions remarkably well by life forms consuming eachother.[/quote]Hmmm....yes, well the "origin of life" bit is proving a bit tricky torationalise. Back in the 1950's a bloke called Miller (Stanley orStephen I think, something with an "S" anyway) did an experiment to tryan demonstrate how life could have originated on Earth. It involvedelectric discharges through mixture of methane, ammonia, carbon dioxideand water vapour, and everyone was very pleased when he very quicklycame up with a selection of amino acids by doing this. A lot ofundergrauate chemists / biochemists get to repeat it for the"ooooohhhhh, aaaaahhh" factor (and a highly instructive exercise insome dead difficult analysis - mind you, they have computers thesedays).However, since then, no-one has been able to come up with a viablemechanism to describe how these amino acids could be assembled intofunctional proteins outside of a living organism, which would benecessary to create a living organism in the first place. Nor, indeed,how these protiens could be reverse-coded to produce the DNA that wouldallow reproduction of these proteins in the quantities needed tosustain life. Rationally, from all that is currently known, weshouldn't exist. We do exist, so clearly something has been missed, butin the main people are dealing with this problem by ignoring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaligoBay Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 But Life had a couple of billion years to get its act together.Our rational brains really can't cope with just how long that is, so we tend to dismiss the possibility that, given enough time, even human scientists could probably come up with a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris pp Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Sorry, Richard Dawkins a bit to dry for me, could do with something to loosen him up a bit, suppository perhaps! I'm quite happy with the general principles of Darwinism, all makes good sense and I wasn't equating something people call God with my thoughts on the possibility of miracles, so I guess I won't be much help with the problems at Lourdes.You have to admit it though, life on Earths a great system.Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Chris - rational means rational. It isn't open to individual interpretation - that is the point of it, rationality. Your failure of imagination doesn't invalidate the scientific method, I am afraid.Jond - I'm afraid a lot of the science goes beyond my 'O' level knowledge, but there is a fascinating account on Wikipedia which includes the idea that the mechanism was found inside 'black smoker' underwater volcanic plumes.Your last statement is not very logical, we do exist therefore we cannot 'know' that we should not exist, we just don't understand the mechanism in sufficient detail yet. It doesn't seem that research is ignoring the problem, but like so many research lines there is no huge breakthrough just a slow and methodical process of experimentation and repetition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris pp Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Sorry Dick, I'm a blond, run that past me again and try not to be afraid.Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 OK - you said " Thefact that you haven't experienced something Dick or that it doesn't fityour particular world view doesn't make it irrational, just your view."I'll gloss over the tone of that and look at the substance. You seem to be saying that rationality depends upon point of view (specifically mine). That isn't true. Rationality means that a statement or proposition can be demonstrated using logic or empirical evidence. Logic is not opinion-dependant, it just is, and evidence even more so. If I believe that rain falls upwards I am not making a logical statement or one which can be supported by evidence, and would not be considered to be rational.Actually, I don't think I'll gloss over the tone. What do you mean by 'your particular world view'? You have said that you don't understand, or can't comprehend, the processes involved, but you seem to mock those who can. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crdale Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="Dicksmith"]Placebos don't work on broken bones, cancer or loss of limbs, and neither does prayer, laying on of hands or immersion in 'holy' water.[/quote] But they do work example on radio today, drug X is for stomach ulcers in tests it cures 70% in a month placebo only cures 40% question how does a sugar pill cure 40% of stomach ulcers in a month and no i don't think it is a miracle Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Because people believe that their symptoms are reduced - placebos can work where symptoms are subjective, but so can many other things. Are you sure that the ulcers were cured, or did the symptoms reduce?For some time I suffered from a painful condition, which was always worse at night. When I questioned a specialist about this the answer was simple, at night there are fewer distractions and the mind dwells on the pain. It is subjective.Other conditions may actually be psychosomatic and can be affected by the state of mind of the patient. Often reassurance helps, and the placebo can be just that. Which may well be the case with stomach ulcers which can be related to anxiety and stress.In a recent study placebos were found to be more effective than homeopathic remedies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="Dicksmith"]Your last statement is not very logical, wedo exist therefore we cannot 'know' that we should not exist, we justdon't understand the mechanism in sufficient detail yet. It doesn'tseem that research is ignoring the problem, but like so many researchlines there is no huge breakthrough just a slow and methodical processof experimentation and repetition.[/quote]Ah, yes - I take your point. I had been attacking the grape-basedinfuriator at that point. To be clear, the answer is out there (as theysay) but at the moment no particular strand looks like bearing fruit.The volcanic vents idea sounds hopeful, but is only at the hypotheticalstage at the moment, there being some considerable practicaldifficulties in working in these environments - necessary if thehypothesis is to be tested.Chris - the problem I have with Dawkins is that while he is a fineauthor (the "selfish gene" I reckon was one of the most influentialpopular science books ever written) he seems these days to be more aprofessional atheist than a scientist. A laxitive may indeed be theanswer.[:|] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamedup Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 If Richard Dawkins has become a Professional Atheist then I am glad. For me who finds the whole religion thing frightening it is good to hear a voice with access to the media who articulates my feelings about it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris pp Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 What I meant Dick by "your particular world view" was very simply that as finite and imperfect functioning machines, all humans beings in my "view" have their own world view, we all see "our world" differently and put a different interpretation on it according to the way we have been programmed by our life circumstances and genetic variables. It's just the way it is.Following from this, although words like rational have a dictionary definition, an individuals understanding of "rational" will differ. If you think that "my tone" was in some way personal you are mistaken, that is not my way and never will be.Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet, 1. 5It is said that the Victorians regarded history as a three volume book, with themselves being the third volume. Certainly in terms of technology and science things leapt forward in that era. A century later the pace of advancement has been breathtaking. However if would be foolish to believe we have all (or even many) of the answers to the topic debated here. Our great grandchildren and their great grandchildren will look back on us in much the same condesending way that we regard the Victorians.For me, I am happy that the answer to life the universe and everything, is still 42. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaligoBay Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="Teamedup"]If Richard Dawkins has become a Professional Atheist then I am glad. For me who finds the whole religion thing frightening it is good to hear a voice with access to the media who articulates my feelings about it all. [/quote]There was/is also the late, great Douglas Adams.He talks a bit about it in "The Salmon of Doubt". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceni Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="Tresco"]The fact that many people who are told they will die by doctors - and then proceed to live for many years - could be termed miraculous, because of course, doctors know everything, don't they?[/quote]I'm not a doctor but based on all evidence to date I am certain that all of us will die.Perhaps Lourdes miracles only work if you worship their god - a bit like Voodoo really, you are unlikely to be hurt by it if you are not a believer.Johnnot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owens88 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="Iceni"]Perhaps Lourdes miracles only work if you worship their god - a bit like Voodoo really, you are unlikely to be hurt by it if you are not a believer.[/quote]Fascinating debate this. Credit to this forum.FWIW I suspect the problem is with the terminology. If we said that miracles=voodoo=infrequently observed, and as yet scientifically unexplained, phenomonenathen probably there would be less disagreement. And as John has touched upon 'faith' may make certain processes or 'xxxorphins' work more easily and as somebody else (Dick ?) said perhaps a concentration of faith might help as well. Static electricity from rubbing amber (and indeed lightning itself) occurred long before we could produce rational explanations.Cheers all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossumGirl Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="SaligoBay"]PG, would an "instantaneously-disappearing tumour" not also be against the laws of nature? Where would it go? What would it turn into? Would it re-materialise inside someone else instead? [/quote]Saligo, I don't see why it should be against the laws of nature. If some process in the body was somehow set off, causing it to disappear, i.e, a transfer of energy. Unusual, yes, but not, in my opinion, against the laws of physics.PG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossumGirl Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="SaligoBay"] And what if this happens to a non-believer elsewhere? Does it count as a miracle? [/quote]No. Again, the Medical Bureau only qualifies things as a cure that is unexplainable through current medical knowledge. It is the Church which declares something a miracle. Two entirely different things.PG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossumGirl Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="SaligoBay"]What bothers me is the irrationality and unpredictability and favouritism of a God who would heal some and not others. [/quote]But, Saligo, the fact that a cure occurs does NOT prove that it was caused by God. That is only one belief system. There is very probably a scientific explanation for it, but one which we do not yet understand.PG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 I might be getting into dodgy ground here, which isn't my intention, but does the Church recognise 'miracles' achieved by other Christian denominations? Or is that a misnomer in that other denominations don't 'do' miracles?I love religious history but I am not the least bit religious, so please excuse my ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossumGirl Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="Iceni"]Perhaps Lourdes miracles only work if you worship their god - a bit like Voodoo really, you are unlikely to be hurt by it if you are not a believer.[/quote]Actually, this does not appear to be the case. There have been cures of people who are not Catholic. However, these will never be miracles according to the Church. And, cures of non-life threatening illnesses are not even studied because of a lack of resources.PG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossumGirl Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 [quote user="viva"]I might be getting into dodgy ground here, which isn't my intention, but does the Church recognise 'miracles' achieved by other Christian denominations? Or is that a misnomer in that other denominations don't 'do' miracles?[/quote]My understanding is that for the Catholic Church to declare a miracle, the cured person has to demonstrate to them (after the cure has been established medically, I might add, and not before) that they specifically prayed for intervention from Our Lady of Lourdes, and therefore that there was faith involved. I don't know if a Jew, or a Muslim or even a Baptist would qualify, even if they did pray to the Lady.PG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now