Lourdes Miracle Problems

[Iceni]

As a confirmed Atheist and/or Agnostic(I can never remember the difference) I find attributing to an all powerful deity the otherwise unexplainable somewhat ludricrous. I do not pretend to understand why an internal combustion engine or French bureaucracy work as they do but just accept them as part of life. Maybe I am hooked on the wrong opiates

John

not

[Deimos]

Spontaneous remission can happen to believers who visit Lourdes, believers who do not visit Lourdes and non-believers (including non-believers who do and no not visit Lourdes). What would be interesting is to see if the spontaneous remission rates are different between believers and non-believers who do and do not visit Lourdes.

I would expect that the Catholic Church Medical Bureau is only interested in spontaneous remissions that occur to believers who visit Lourdes for the purpose of recovery. Being a cynic I would also suspect that the Church might not be making comparisons between such remissions for other groups of people with similar diseases.

Probably an interesting statistical exercise but one that might be difficult depending on the sample size of the spontaneous remissions that are documented from believers visiting Lourdes.

Ian

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="PossumGirl"]

But, Saligo, the fact that a cure occurs does NOT prove that it was caused by God.  [/quote]

I know, but this thread is about cures that happen at Lourdes, which is very much God territory. 

Deimos has spoken wisely. 

[Dick Smith]

Sorry PG, I want to pick up on something you wrote earlier. What might a 'transmission of energy' that brings about spontaneous remission actually be? Do you have any empirical evidence that such an energy transfer actually happens? What is the nature of the energy and the method of transmission?

[PossumGirl]

[quote user="Dicksmith"]Sorry PG, I want to pick up on something you wrote earlier. What might a 'transmission of energy' that brings about spontaneous remission actually be? Do you have any empirical evidence that such an energy transfer actually happens? What is the nature of the energy and the method of transmission?

[/quote]

"transmission of energy" was probably not the best way of expressing myself Dick.  I think "conversion" of energy is probably better.  From what I've read and from what the medical director explained, everyone who has gone through a spontaneous cure has experienced similar phenomenon, i.e., extreme fluctuations of body temperature from feeling freezing cold to burning heat over a few minutes time, followed by a certain period (a couple of days) of insatiable hunger.  Thus, it appears that the body itself might be using energy to effect the cure. The hunger seems to be caused by a need for calories afterwards, and calories equal energy.

PG

[Deimos]

There seem so many things that go on in the world that we cannot explain using rational science. Some “unexplained things” are not particularly controversial and people just accept them. Other things are less common and thus subject to greater suspicion. However, just because we cannot explain something does not mean it does not happen or exist.

Unfortunately, I think attributing such “unexplained” events to God is really no explanation – more of an excuse and to suggest that we need no further explanation. To some extent, attributing unexplained events to a God risks stifling further investigation as the event is now explained (i.e. God did it and thus no amount of earthly investigation will reveal anything further ). Fortunately not everybody takes “divine intervention” as adequate explanations and thus some do investigate further.

There do seem two aspects to the miracle cure phenomenon at Lourdes; does it really happen (above the normal spontaneous remission rates) and if so, how does it work. Seems that it would be best to establish if it happens before attempting to explain possible mechanisms (i.e. happen at Lourdes to believers statistically more frequently/faster/differently than it does to everybody else).

Do people non-believers who experience spontaneous remissions in e.g. hospital or at home experience similar temperature (or other sensations) or is this just a Lourdes/religious effect ?

One interesting aspect of the Dawkins programs was the state of fundamentalism in the US. Based on what I saw of the program and have read, if I were a scientist in the US I would think very carefully about investigating anything related to such religious events. The consequences of findings showing natural explanations could be quite career damaging. A bit off track but I do worry a bit about some of the more extreme (Christian) fundamentalists in both the US and UK starting to stifle progress.

Ian

[Dick Smith]

I'm sorry, PG, that is unsubstantiated balderdash. I don't mean to be rude, but you need to be looking for things that have rational, scientific explanations, not mystical energy transmissions that leave you feeling hungry or some other set of subjective sensations, all of which I can get by just being in a heightened emotional stae. Surely if someone sent energy to you THEY would feel hungry? Claptrap, I am afraid.

Ian I agree completely. Some things are not explained - yet. Because someone doesn't understand something that doesn't make it supernatural. That seems to be at the basis of this woo-woo nonsense, someone has a poor grasp of science and logic and therefore infers that because they can't understand what is happening it is inexplicable. Others with a better grasp can explic it quite well...

[PossumGirl]

Something is "inexplicable" because at the moment, there is no explanation.  It doesn't mean there ISN'T one!  Just that current knowledge doesn't explain it.  That is the whole point of looking into something like this, isn't it? 

Perhaps these things do occur elsewhere.  It just so happens  that the cures that have happened at Lourdes DO have a body of research (whether you want to accept it or not) behind them. 

PG

[Dick Smith]

That is what I've been asking you - what, exactly, is the research? Is it all subjective statements about feeling hot or hungry or is there any real science behind it?

[The Riff-Raff Element]

There seem so many things that go on in the world that we cannot

explain using rational science. Some “unexplained things” are not

particularly controversial and people just accept them. Other things

are less common and thus subject to greater suspicion. However, just

because we cannot explain something does not mean it does not happen or

exist.

Unfortunately, I think attributing such “unexplained” events to God

is really no explanation – more of an excuse and to suggest that we

need no further explanation. To some extent, attributing unexplained

events to a God risks stifling further investigation as the event is

now explained (i.e. God did it and thus no amount of earthly

investigation will reveal anything further ). Fortunately not everybody

takes “divine intervention” as adequate explanations and thus some do

investigate further.

Agreed. Where things sometimes go wrong is that in their haste to deny

the possible existence of God as a reason for a particular occurance,

some "scientists" become guilty of some really poor science that does

their case no good whatsoever. After all the persecution science

suffered at the hands of the church, one would have hoped that

scientists would have learned the danger of ridiculing  or

gainsaying causes or existences that they can currently neither prove nor

disprove.

One interesting aspect of the Dawkins programs was the state of

fundamentalism in the US. Based on what I saw of the program and have

read, if I were a scientist in the US I would think very carefully

about investigating anything related to such religious events. The

consequences of findings showing natural explanations could be quite

career damaging. A bit off track but I do worry a bit about some of the

more extreme (Christian) fundamentalists in both the US and UK starting

to stifle progress.

I would share your concerns. The rising influence of Christian

extremism in the world's largest and most techologically advanced

economy is deeply worrying. By the same token, I am quite pleased that

the concept of creationism is being re-introduced as a discussion point

to school science classes in the UK. However unlikely it may now seem,

creationism is still a potentially viable hypothesis and must therefore

be given houseroom until such time as it is disproven. That is good

scientific practice.

[Teamedup]

A long time ago I read a book by James Michener, the end had the fundamentalist christians taking over America, chilling it was. I've read a few of his yarns and it wasn't the best but the only one that I remember.

[PossumGirl]

[quote user="Dicksmith"]That is what I've been asking you - what, exactly, is the research? Is it all subjective statements about feeling hot or hungry or is there any real science behind it?

[/quote]

No. There is an international medical committee that is independent of the Catholic Church.  When a person declares they have been cured (and, the person has to TELL the medical board that they've been cured, otherwise the process never gets started), the research begins.

First, medical records are requested from whatever doctors were treating the patient for their illness.  This is the part that has become increasingly difficult, as anything such as chemotherapy, radiation, or the like automatically rules the cure out from further study.  Clearly, in the past, when there was less medical help available for most people, this was simpler.

The medical records from the past (including x-rays, lab results, etc.) are studied, along with all the new x-rays, etc.  So, there is plenty of documentation re the patient's previous and current status.

Then, the patient and his/her new records get reviewed on an annual basis for a number of years (has gone on for as long as 12 in some cases) to be certain that the illness does no return, since that would be a remission and not a cure.

Besides talking to the medical director at Lourdes, I have several case studies which include x-rays and other data about the status of several of the patients.  Clearly, the data from cases in the modern era are easier to document than anything that happened during the 19th and early years of the 20th centuries.

PG

[PossumGirl]

[quote user="Teamedup"]A long time ago I read a book by James Michener, the end had the fundamentalist christians taking over America, chilling it was. I've read a few of his yarns and it wasn't the best but the only one that I remember.[/quote]

Clearly, Michener was a good prognosticator.  I would like to think that the UK won't stand for what has happened in the U.S.

I don't actually mind the fundamentalists believing whatever they want.  I DO mind them trying to foist their beliefs on everybody else.  When  you have pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills because they believe they are "abortion" pills, that starts interfering in the rights of others.

PG

[Deimos]

[quote user="jond"]By the same token, I am quite pleased that the concept of creationism is being re-introduced as a discussion point to school science classes in the UK.

[/quote]

A bit of an aside but there was a program on UK television the other week saying how in some schools creationism (basically Genesis et al) was something more than a discussion point in some schools. The main concerns were that there are now some schools (called trust schools ?) which are mostly paid for by public money but contributions from private sources allow those private sources control over teaching (who teaches what). The program focused on three schools in the north where the private contribution was from a Christian Fundamentalist, the head was a Christian Fundamentalist, a lot of the teachers (incl Biology) were Christian Fundamentalists. As they were state schools under private control, the parents had no choice but to send their kids where they were told (i.e. they are not faith schools). The kids were saying how e.g. they are taught evolution for exam purposes and then taught the creationism (teachers presenting creationism as what they believe).

It becomes a different issue where there are accepted rational explanations for something yet children are being taught from a young age alternatives that are based on e.g. a single book of questionable origin. I am happy with the idea of presenting children with alternatives for discussion and to broaden their minds but not to teach religious alternatives to accepted explanations as a “superior” to the accepted, “proven” (or demonstrated) explanations. Evolution is a good example. The evolutionary process can be observed (and not just in the fossil record), theory fits with observed facts, theory explains current and historical observations, etc. Under such circumstances, explanations about it all being a omnipotent being’s work, done in a few days 6000 years ago neither fits with the facts nor explains observed phenomena. Thus teaching is to children as “what really happened” (in science classes by science teachers) is not acceptable to me (particularly in a government funded school when parents have no choice about sending their kids there).

Ian

[Dick Smith]

Ian - the schools are Academies,  and the one you are referring to is Emmanuel School, which I visited in 2002. I was actually going for another reason, but this had just come up in the trade papers and so I asked about it. Your assessment of what happens is 100%.

You are right that it is a fine line between discussion and indoctrination, and it is indoctrination that the fundamentalists are after. I can never decide if they are too limited to comprehend the truth or if they are so blinded by their need for faith to make their lives have some extra meaning (ie it isn't true that life's a bitch and then you die) that they are in denial. In the case of the Dover School Board in the USA it seemed to be the former - they were clearly people of limited intellect elected to the school board on a religious platform.

[Most Holy]

There is plenty of irrefutable and official scientific evidence about the "inexplicable" cures connected with Lourdes.

One of the most recent, and striking, cases is the spontaneous cure of

the sarcoma of the pelvis of Vittorio Micheli that occurred in 1963.

After nine years of thorough medical investigation by a committee

chaired by  Prof Salmon of the French Academy of Surgery and

French Academy of Medicine, the matter was then passed on to the

Church, who did pronounce it a miracle. That is, of course, their

prerogative.

But in 1971 the case was presented to a symposium of orthgopaedic

surgeons and cancer specialists, without any reference to Lourdes, and

after some further investigation, no one could offer a valid

explanation for the cure.

The case proved so challenging to the medical community that it was

reviewed again in the official Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery of

international repute (Vol 57 No 4, June 1971, p. 323) which stated:

"This is a quite extraordinary case where extensive destruction of the

iliac bone ended in its reconstruction without any therapeutic

intervention, except a biopsy."

I have a copy of the 60+-page report issued by Prof. Salmon right here

on my desk; it contains many photos and x-rays clearly showing the

existence of a malignant lesion (sarcoma of the pelvis) before, its

damage and the radical transformation and reconstruction of the

articulation of the hip thereafter.

There are still many things science cannot adequately explain today,

but I do not doubt that a scientific explanation will be found someday.

The exploration of the Solar System is full of such mysteries and

revelations.

The decision to explain these mysteries through religion, or faith, is

a personal one; to request a proper scientific investigation is

correct; but to continue disputing scientific evidence after the facts

have been ascertained is not worthy of the people here who claim

adherence to the scientific method.

[Deimos]

[quote user="Dicksmith"]… and the one you are referring to is Emmanuel School, which I visited in 2002.

[/quote]

The program (may have been a “Dispatches”) took an example that was actually 3 schools (or rather has now expanded to 3 schools) – the head is the same person for all 3 and the ”private contributor” is somebody who owns a chain of 2nd hand car dealerships (surname begins with V but cannot remember it all as such details were not relevant).

Ian

[Dick Smith]

Reg Vardy. He also sponsors and may be a director of Sunderland Football Club. Not to be confused with him off On The Buses. His second school was heavily criticised by local parents (in Gateshead?) - they didn't want him to be running their local comprehensive, but the faith schools agenda at the Department of Education/Number 10 did for them.

For me the scariest issues are the unswerving support for these schools from No 10 and their plants at the DfES and the Secretary of State herself, who is an admitted member of Opus Dei.

[Tag]

Didnt I see that some English exam boards are putting the discussion of Creationism on the curriculum and examining it.

Dick, you are quite right to be concerned. Secret societies like Opus Dei are quite unscrupulous at getting their way, as are the less subtle fundamentalists. Their sole aim is of course to pervert young minds. Which may be why the French system of State secular education is such a powerful tool against extremism, even if it does seem to go over the top occasionally (eg headscarves).

Just had a discussion of Intelligent Design my 2nd year Biology students at Uni Liège. 95% howled with laughter but there was a small number who were prepared to defend it. Worrying.

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Most Holy"]There is plenty of irrefutable and official scientific evidence about the "inexplicable" cures connected with Lourdes.

One of the most recent, and striking, cases is the spontaneous cure of the sarcoma of the pelvis of Vittorio Micheli that occurred in 1963. [/quote]

Fine.  43 years ago one person was cured.  Since then, how many millions have died of this and other illnesses? 

Does anyone know, do other religions go in for miraculous cures in the way Catholicism does?  It's a serious question, I really don't know.

[Viv]

[quote user="Tag"]

Didnt I see that some English exam boards are putting the discussion of Creationism on the curriculum and examining it.

[/quote]

I wonder how parents who withdraw their kids from RE will cope with this?

[Viv]

[quote user="Tag"]

Didnt I see that some English exam boards are putting the discussion of Creationism on the curriculum and examining it.

[/quote]

I wonder how parents who withdraw their kids from RE will cope with this?

posted twice in error and can't delete, mods please  feel free to delete this;

[Dick Smith]

Yes - in the science curriculum. The biggest danger is that this decision concedes (spuriously) that creationsm and intelligent design are 'scientific', when in fact they are nothing of the sort. A recent survey showed that as few as 40% of people believed that Darwinian natural selection was the correct description of evolution. A large number seemed to say that they didn't believe it because they didn't understand it. This is quite worrying - those people have the vote. They are the easily manipulated ones.

[Most Holy]

[quote user="SaligoBay"]

Fine.  43 years ago one person was cured.  Since then, how many millions have died of this and other illnesses? 

[/quote]

I can't speak for the wherefores of religion. I suspect that when a

caveman saw a thunderbolt strike a tree it was easier for him to

postulate a god of thunder than a discharge of electricity.

But the real scientist does not say "Fine. One tree was struck by

lightning. How many more trees were not" and goes in blithely ignoring

the issue. Neither does he deny the existence of the lightning because

he doesn't believe in the god of thunder. He tries to understand what

causes the lightning.

The fact that there are, has been, a number of unexplained cures, at

Lourdes -- and elsewhere -- unexplained in the current state of our

scientific knowledge, of course -- hints that the human body has

resources barely understood or tapped.

It doesn't matter how many patients regrew a bone; if a single apple

fell upwards towards the sky, that would warrant investigation too; the

fact that ONE patient regrew a bone is an extraordinary phenomenon.

[Patf]

Dick - We lived in Gateshead for some years and our neighbour was

desperate to get her son into Emmanuel School as she said their

academic standard was excellent ie good results in public exams. And

Saligo - there is a strong tradition in Judaism that miracles occur but

the definition of a miracle is much broader ie where God steps in to

change the course of nature. Could be for example when Hitler was on

the point of invading UK and suddenly changed his plans. I know there's

a historical explanation for this but that in itself was a miracle

. Another angle on this-  did anyone see the programme made by

Kathy Sykes on the placebo effect? Some of the results eg the knee

operation were almost miraculous.  Pat.