Jump to content

Lourdes Miracle Problems


Recommended Posts

If they did. Where is your proof, or are you basing this on credulity? What is all this 'untapped resources' stuff? If they are unknown or untapped then surely we don't know about them, and after this length of time that is a strong hint that they don't exist. If we know about them they aren't mysterious or untapped.

Either show proper proof that the miracles actually occurred - that is an examination by more than one independent,  reputable physician who can diagnose a condition BEFORE the visit to Lourdes followed by an equally rigorous examination AFTERWARDS which shows that a spontaneous cure has occurred, or let it go.  If you can't do that you ain't got diddly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have little faith, if I may use that word on this post, in Kathy Sykes. I just can't take what she says in any way seriously,  bonny she may be, as there was a great hoo hah after the accupunture episode concerning the reporting about the heart surgery in China, which was misleading. And she has the same patronising tones as Julian Richards, how she grates on me. However, I have seen a program about placebo operations on the knee that was not made by her and found it very interesting.

Who knows why these things work. I do not believe in entity induced miracles. I do know some things are incredible and miraculous though and I daresay that one day science will have an explanation.

 

When I was at school I suppose that we were taught creationism, we had RE and were told that god created the earth  and the world we live in, in a week etc, or something like that. I don't think it harmed me and even as a child didn't believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Most Holy"][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.

[/quote]

Yes, HolyMan, but one out of many many many millions is just that - one.  It's an oddity, an exception to the norm.  Already, an event that happened in 1963 is the ancient past, it's before half the world's population was even born.  It's already almost a myth!

I'm not denying that these things happen.  I'm not denying that they're worthy of study in themselves.  But the best thing would be to separate them altogether from any connection with religion, and study them scientifically.  That way there's at least a chance of getting a reasonable answer.  If you add religion in it just becomes a big mess - it's faith, it's lack of faith, it's God's love, it's God's punishment, it's because this, that, or some other  thing.

I can't remember who answered about miracle in Judaism, thank you.  But you know, rather than stop God invading the UK, why didn't he - and I say this in all seriousness - just get rid of Hitler earlier and stop a whole lot of suffering?   Could have saved millions of lives, Jews, gipsies, homosexuals, you name it.  And British, Americans, French, Germans, the lot.   I just can't see the sense in it, sorry.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dicksmith"]If they did. Where is your proof, or are you

basing this on credulity? What is all this 'untapped resources' stuff?

If they are unknown or untapped then surely we don't know about them,

and after this length of time that is a strong hint that they don't

exist. If we know about them they aren't mysterious or untapped.

Either

show proper proof that the miracles actually occurred - that is an

examination by more than one independent,  reputable physician who

can diagnose a condition BEFORE the visit to Lourdes followed by an

equally rigorous examination AFTERWARDS which shows that a spontaneous

cure has occurred, or let it go.  If you can't do that you ain't

got diddly.

[/quote]

The things that we know about the human body are almost certainly

outnumbered by the things that we do not know, particularly down at

cellular level. Simple example: we produce millions of different types

of proteins, yet, so far, the role of only a few hundred are

understood. For the rest, we haven't got a clue, though presumably they

are important. As far as biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics

are concerned, as a race we have hardly begun. The human body could be

capable of all kinds of strange things given particular circumstances,

including spontaneous cure (at a shrine or not). Getting these things

to happen upon demand is clearly not possible (yet), so it would seem

justified to investigate what we have, however sceptical we might be.

The things we do not know about the cosmos are legion; current models

of the cosmos require the existence of somethings called "dark matter"

and "dark energy" if the numbers are going to add up - together these

are supposed to make up 96% of the mass of the universe. Neither have

ever been observed, and there is only the scantiest actual evidence at

all for their existence. However, their existence has been inferred

because we would otherwise have to throw out (amongst other things) the

idea of the Big Bang and General Relativity. To me, this looks an awful

lot like faith.[:)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it all boils down to this; whether or not we believe.

To quote Epicurius:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Teamedup"]

When I was at school I suppose that we were taught creationism, we had RE and were told that god created the earth and the world we live in, in a week etc, or something like that. I don't think it harmed me and even as a child didn't believe it.

[/quote]

Bit of a side track from the thread (my fault as well). However, when you were taught creationism I bet it was in RE. Apparently these Christian Fundamentalist schools are teaching it in Biology and Science. I think the class it is taught in put the presentation in context. To start teaching religious dogma as science is maybe misleading to the children.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

The things we do not know about the cosmos are legion; current models

of the cosmos require the existence of somethings called "dark matter"

and "dark energy" if the numbers are going to add up - together these

are supposed to make up 96% of the mass of the universe. Neither have

ever been observed, and there is only the scantiest actual evidence at

all for their existence. However, their existence has been inferred

because we would otherwise have to throw out (amongst other things) the

idea of the Big Bang and General Relativity. To me, this looks an awful

lot like faith"

There is a fallacy (or two) here.

First of all the fact that we are unable to fully explain that which we theorise is normal, all theories are provisional. That does not mean that they are wrong, unsupported by evidence or 'a matter of faith', it means that scientists recognise that they are a work in progress and should be modified in the light of new knowledge. They do not assume them whole and then believe in them uncritically. Many creationists make this point about the 'theory' of evolution, as did Tony Blair. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method and the characteristics which distinguish it from faith. Or the world of woo-woo.

It is a fallacy to claim that phenomena which have been inferred (and that is a logical process, not guesswork or imagination) require 'faith'. They require experimental proof, and you will not find a single scientist in the known universe who would tell you any different. That is how they work, the scientific method is central, and that requires repeatable (important that) experimental proof.

Your knowledge of dark matter is, I think, weak. It is used as a portmanteau term for that which has not been encountered but has been inferred by scientific calculation, not by guesswork or imagination. In fact a lot of it is now being postulated in supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies (and these have been observed, or at least their effects have been as you can't see a black hole).

To correct your figures, 4% of the universe is visible, 23% is dark matter, the remainder is dark energy. It is this sort of inaccuracy of conceptualisation, language and statistics which compound a basic lack of understanding to produce statements about faith. If you misrepresent the truth you can 'prove' almost anything...

See the article at Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a side track from the thread (my fault as well). However, when

you were taught creationism I bet it was in RE. Apparently these

Christian Fundamentalist schools are teaching it in Biology and

Science. I think the class it is taught in put the presentation in

context. To start teaching religious dogma as science is maybe

misleading to the children.

Absolutely - but scientific dogma can be equally damaging: how long did

it take for the idea that the continents move around on plates to be

accepted? A hundred years? Something like that - and that was in the

face of scoops of evidence. I think it would be best to present ideas

that are to be challenged by science within the context of a science

lesson. The emphasis has to be on balance. The existence of any

fundamentalist school in the UK should really be a matter of concern -

is that strange creature currently in charge of education in the UK

really a member of opus dei?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Patf"] 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.

[/quote]

I watched that program with enormous interest. Some of the experiments

she reported were indeed amazing, tho possibly not quite in the same

league as the Lourdes cures.  What disappointed me was that Dr

Sykes failed to offer any theories to explain how the placebo effect

works. Mind over matter? Can the human body synthesize its own drugs?

And if so, how? In the end, she failed to analyze the very phenomenon

she was reporting.

Dr Sykes is hardly the first scientist to have charted these waters. In

1893, Prof. Charcot, one of the founders of modern neurology (who later

influenced Janet and Freud), published his own explanation of the cures

of Lourdes, attributing them to the “Faith That Heals,” in other words,

an otherwise unexplained mechanical phenomenon through which religious

“exaltation” led to a “cerebral process”  resulting in a

cure. 

All this is interesting, but ultimately strikes me as replacing one

"faith" by another. Any theory who relies on "cerebral process" to

explain a physiological phenomenon might as well rely on the Virgin

Mary.

The investigation goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dicksmith"]Either show proper proof that the miracles

actually occurred - that is an examination by more than one

independent,  reputable physician who can diagnose a condition

BEFORE the visit to Lourdes followed by an equally rigorous examination

AFTERWARDS which shows that a spontaneous cure has occurred, or let it

go.  If you can't do that you ain't got diddly.

[/quote]

All these conditions have been met and more, and investigated and 

reported thoroughly. I cann't believe you don't realize this? If you

wish to genuinely inform yourself and are prepared to cover the costs

of photocopying and postage, I'd be happy to send you copies of medical

reports. You should plan on several hundred pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Teamedup"]

Who knows why these things work. I do not believe in entity induced

miracles. I do know some things are incredible and miraculous though

and I daresay that one day science will have an explanation.

 [/quote]

That is exactly my attitude, and that of all the scientists

interested in investigating the frontiers of medicine. 

Antibiotics might have seemed miraculous to a 10th century man. The

fact we do not yet have an explanation, or even the framework of one,

does not mean we will not find one someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dicksmith"]"

The things we do not know about the cosmos are legion; current models

of the cosmos require the existence of somethings called "dark matter"

and "dark energy" if the numbers are going to add up - together these

are supposed to make up 96% of the mass of the universe. Neither have

ever been observed, and there is only the scantiest actual evidence at

all for their existence. However, their existence has been inferred

because we would otherwise have to throw out (amongst other things) the

idea of the Big Bang and General Relativity. To me, this looks an awful

lot like faith"

There is a fallacy (or two) here.

First

of all the fact that we are unable to fully explain that which we

theorise is normal, all theories are provisional. That does not mean

that they are wrong, unsupported by evidence or 'a matter of faith', it

means that scientists recognise that they are a work in progress and

should be modified in the light of new knowledge. They do not assume

them whole and then believe in them uncritically. Many creationists

make this point about the 'theory' of evolution, as did Tony Blair.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method and the

characteristics which distinguish it from faith. Or the world of

woo-woo.

It is a fallacy to claim that phenomena which have been

inferred (and that is a logical process, not guesswork or imagination)

require 'faith'. They require experimental proof, and you will not find

a single scientist in the known universe who would tell you any

different. That is how they work, the scientific method is central, and

that requires repeatable (important that) experimental proof.

Your

knowledge of dark matter is, I think, weak. It is used as a portmanteau

term for that which has not been encountered but has been inferred by

scientific calculation, not by guesswork or imagination. In fact a lot

of it is now being postulated in supermassive black holes at the

centres of galaxies (and these have been observed, or at least their

effects have been as you can't see a black hole).

To correct your

figures, 4% of the universe is visible, 23% is dark matter, the

remainder is dark energy. It is this sort of inaccuracy of

conceptualisation, language and statistics which compound a basic lack

of understanding to produce statements about faith. If you misrepresent

the truth you can 'prove' almost anything...

See the article at Wikipedia.

[/quote]

100% - 4% visible matter = 96% presumed dark matter & dark energy. That's what I said. I think.

You're right, my knowledge of dark matter is weak, but my understanding

of relativity is pretty good and I can understand the implications of

what is being said. I am not trying to present any truth, merely

illustrating that there is a huge amount about the universe that is not

clearly understood. I would stand by my assertation that there is

currently no direct evidence ("experimantal proof" if you prefer) of

either of these quantities, and there is a fair body of opinion within

cosmology that have doubts about the whole idea - me, I haven't got an

clue about the likelihood or otherwise of it being right. Not really my

field. However, there are a lot of people extrapolating a long way

based on the presumption (without actual proof) that both these

quantities do exist, and that is a looks to me something like a leap of

faith. Imagine how disappointed they will be if they find out that the

universe is held together with Copydex or something.

Please don't make the error of assuming that I am some kind of raving

creationist, because I most certainly am not. I do, however, have an

open mind and a habit of not discarding ideas out of hand. I like

proof, not dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="SaligoBay"]

I'm not denying that these things happen.  I'm not denying

that they're worthy of study in themselves.  But the best thing

would be to separate them altogether from any connection with religion,

and study them scientifically.  That way there's at least a chance

of getting a reasonable answer.  If you add religion in it just

becomes a big mess - it's faith, it's lack of faith, it's God's love,

it's God's punishment, it's because this, that, or some

other  thing.

[/quote]

I'm in perfect agreement with you.  Religion does complicate

things somewhat. I'm an agnostic myself (the "pseudonym" is a homage to

a famous comic-book character that pointedly satirized religion in

general and the Catholic Church in particular.)

If you're willing to take my word for it without tons of data dumped

here, you should keep in mind that (a) these unexplained cures happen a

lot more than you seem to think, and it is not that unique thing you

seem to think it is, and (b) 1963 is not very "old" -- it takes 10 to

20 years to comprehensively review and study those sort of phenomena.

Ideally, if we could understand how a person can be cured

thoroughly, quickly and definitively (that's where the time factor

comes into play, remission, you know) of things that are incurable by

our current level of medical science ... I need not spell out the

enormous benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dicksmith"]You might be interested to read a sceptical point of view on this at the Randi Foundation forums.

[/quote]

You mean, the magician? Surely you're not suggesting we take the

viewpoint of a stage magician seriously, over that of professional

doctors, professors and medical journals? Other than debunking Uri

Gellers the man has no qualifications. He's an American showman who

knows how to exploit the gullible "skeptiks" and has made a fortune

doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are showing either your ignorance or your bias. Randi is an ex-magician who claims that he can replicate any 'psychic' or other 'supernatural' fraud. He offers a million dollars for anyone who can show proper proof, a challenge which no 'psychic' has ever taken, of course. His website is a discussion forum for sceptics.

Now - which 'professional doctors, professors (of what?) and medical journals' are you citing here? What proof do they have that these 'miracles' are true? Remember what I said in an earlier post, proof would consist of a pre-existing medical condition attested by more than one independent doctor which spontaneously cures itself with no medical or other human intervention and which can be verified as cured after the event by more than one independent doctor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at present you Dick nor me could be healed spontaneously because we don't have the belief, nor could we lie on a bed of nails. But I think self healing will be used in medicine in the future, through a drug or hypnosis or a gadget (like seen in Star Trek).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the advance of science I strongly believe that it will happen in the not too distant future, especially with cancer or illnesses brought on through psychological factors. "Miracles" will become an every day occurence even for non believers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Monika"]I think at present you Dick nor me could be healed spontaneously because we don't have the belief, nor could we lie on a bed of nails. But I think self healing will be used in medicine in the future, through a drug or hypnosis or a gadget (like seen in Star Trek).[/quote]

I believe it could happen , though I don't expect it to happen ( I hope that makes sense) after all there is much technology around us today that people even 100 years  ago would not have believed could have been created.

I think as well there is so much with the human brain that we do not know, perhaps as illnesses such as cancers that are created by the body, could be cured by the body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that sometimes, possibly, sick people get better after visiting Lourdes.  This is put down, by Catholic christians, anyway, as the intervention of God.  But since God was specifically invented by humans to explain the inexplicable, it can be no surprise that when something apparently "miraculous" happens, he is held by the church to have been responsible.

Why do people of no particular religious faith, as well as people who have never been to Lourdes, also recover from illnesses against all medical expectations?  Can't we stop looking for answers in ancient mythology and get on with searching for the truth about creation, and the creator if any, by studying the universe using the best tool we have for the purpose - the human brain?  We may never know even a tiny fraction of the truth, but at least we'll have made an honest effort to find out, instead of accepting blindly the least likely story, even if it may have some superficially attractive elements.

It would probably be a good thing for humanity, although only a small step forward for mankind, if Lourdes were to be finally, completely and irrefutably debunked as a site of "miracles".  If the Catholic church really cared about the truth, they would denounce the place themselves.

Patrick      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dicksmith"]Thank you Ian - that has been said a few times already, but people are really not picking up the importance of teaching woo-woo as if it is science.

[/quote]

I see that the Church of England (or rather the Archbishop of Canterbury) have now come out saying that schools should not be teaching creationism. To quote today’s Guardian: “the archbishop was emphatic in his criticism of creationism being taught in the classroom, as is happening in two city academies founded by the evangelical Christian businessman Sir Peter Vardy and several other schools.”.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[{] Tresco [}]

I mean NO offence at all but I think that by miracle I have become very shortsighted and your postings have answered my prayers so much so that I now feel intimidated when reading them, by the size of the fonts you use.

Would it be another little miracle for you to reduce the size of it and your postings won't feel so intimidating... [:$]

As to Lourdes : the miracle is found at the bank, the manager witnesses miracles every day! His customers are richer by the day, he then collects a few more charges off their accounts and he get his percentage/bonus at the end of the month.....

Another miracle is that Gordon Brown has not had the idea to build a fake Lourdes somewhere in UK and collect more for his coffers from us all... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...