Lourdes Miracle Problems

[Dick Smith]

I give up. Irrationality rules, it seems.

[chris pp]

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.

 

[SaligoBay]

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.)  

[SaligoBay]

[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! [;)]

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[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]

Hmmm....yes, well the "origin of life" bit is proving a bit tricky to

rationalise. Back in the 1950's a bloke called Miller (Stanley or

Stephen I think, something with an "S" anyway) did an experiment to try

an demonstrate how life could have originated on Earth. It involved

electric discharges through mixture of methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide

and water vapour, and everyone was very pleased when he very quickly

came up with a selection of amino acids by doing this. A lot of

undergrauate chemists / biochemists get to repeat it for the

"ooooohhhhh, aaaaahhh" factor (and a highly instructive exercise in

some dead difficult analysis - mind you, they have computers these

days).

However, since then, no-one has been able to come up with a viable

mechanism to describe how these amino acids could be assembled into

functional proteins outside of a living organism, which would be

necessary to create a living organism in the first place. Nor, indeed,

how these protiens could be reverse-coded to produce the DNA that would

allow reproduction of these proteins in the quantities needed to

sustain life. Rationally, from all that is currently known, we

shouldn't exist. We do exist, so clearly something has been missed, but

in the main people are dealing with this problem by ignoring it.

[SaligoBay]

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.

[chris pp]

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 

[Dick Smith]

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.

[chris pp]

Sorry Dick, I'm a blond, run that past me again and try not to be afraid.

Chris

[Dick Smith]

OK - you said "

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."

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?

[crdale]

[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

[Dick Smith]

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.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Dicksmith"]

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.

[/quote]

Ah, yes - I take your point. I had been attacking the grape-based

infuriator at that point. To be clear, the answer is out there (as they

say) but at the moment no particular strand looks like bearing fruit.

The volcanic vents idea sounds hopeful, but is only at the hypothetical

stage at the moment, there being some considerable practical

difficulties in working in these environments - necessary if the

hypothesis is to be tested.

Chris - the problem I have with Dawkins is that while he is a fine

author (the "selfish gene" I reckon was one of the most influential

popular science books ever written) he seems these days to be more a

professional atheist than a scientist. A laxitive may indeed be the

answer.[:|]

[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.

[chris pp]

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

 

[Renaud]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Hamlet, 1. 5

It 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.

[SaligoBay]

[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".

 

[Iceni]

[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.

John

not

[Owens88]

[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, phenomonena

then 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.

 

 

[PossumGirl]

[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

[PossumGirl]

[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

[PossumGirl]

[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

[Viv]

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.

[PossumGirl]

[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

[PossumGirl]

[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