Lourdes Miracle Problems

[Deimos]

I see that the Catholic Church in Lourdes is introducing a new “category” of miraculous healing. It seems that the church cannot call a spontaneous recovery a “miracle” unless doctors will state that the disease was incurable. With advances in modern medicine, doctors will tend not to call very much incurable, thus the “miracle rates” at Lourdes have been on the decline.

To recover from this dropping “miracle rate”, the church is introducing a new category called “authentic healings”. This new category will not require the disease to be incurable, so there should hopefully be a few more of them and things will start to look brighter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1726713,00.html?gusrc=rss (sorry, cannot do this as a link as the forum software does not like my IE browser).

Ian

[PossumGirl]

Ian, I've been working on a book about Lourdes, and it is really a fascinating subject.  One of the problems that they have had in recent years is that people who come to Lourdes now "expect" to get a miracle!  This wasn't always the case, when pilgrims were simply grateful.

There are a lot of small cures that have never been studied because the medical bureau just doesn't have the resources for it. Just because you aren't dying, doesn't mean you aren't thrilled to have your medical condtion resolved. And, of course, it's also difficult for them to study anything that takes place outside of Europe.

PG

[Teamedup]

I watched the Root of all Evil a tv program by Richard Dawkins who was not impressed with Lourdes 'miracles'. There never have been many from what was said. So what a 'surprise' that the church is now moving the goal posts.

[Dick Smith]

PG - are you saying that Lourdes 'miracle cures' actually exist? You'd have proof of that, of course...

[Richard-R]

The only miracle I have ever seen on Lourdes (been a few times) is the amount on money the idiots (sorry pilgrims) are willing to spend on rubbish plastic virgin maries and the like.

The locals must scream each year 'it's a miracle I'm far richer than last year'.

[Dick Smith]

10 million pilgrims and 66 'miracles' - none of them verified. Hmmm. Not good odds.

As one scientist said when he visited Lourdes and saw the crutches hanging up - "No wooden legs?".

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Dicksmith"]10 million pilgrims and 66 'miracles' - none of them verified. Hmmm. Not good odds.

As one scientist said when he visited Lourdes and saw the crutches hanging up - "No wooden legs?".

[/quote]

Scientists (and I speak as one who once was) have a terrible problem

with absence of evidence. Despite the many, many classes in "philosphy

of science" (God they were dull - we wanted to be out there making

horrid smells and setting fire to each other's hair and such like) and

being able to say things like "absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence" at the drop of a hat they don't really, deep down, believe it.

And as for keeping an open mind....

Had there been a wooden leg hanging there (and were I in charge of the

marketing there would be the whole range of prosthetic equipment stuck

on the walls with the aim of inspiring confidence) I can almost

guarantee that he would have come up with some other witticism.

Not that I believe it myself, mind.

It is interesting that people are very quick to deny the existence of

God and yet believe wholeheartedly in the consumption of piles of

vitamins and other supplements. On one hand we have no actual evidence

one way or the other, only faith; on the other plenty of evidence to

suggest negligible benefits and (possibly) harm. Bit odd, really.

[chris pp]

I would have thought ( and I make no judgement ) that "miracles" by their very nature must be transcendental in origin, that is to say the miraculous action would be originated in a "world" that was beyond possible and impossible and therefore beyond evidential proof.

Chris

 

[Teamedup]

I wouldn't think that being 'cured' by a placebo is transcendental and yet that does happen. The human brain is fantastic.

[Viv]

 

RE Chris PP,

I would have thought so too, but the Vatican has been looking for evidence that the last Pope created ( is that the right word?) sufficient miracles in order to beatify him.

I would have thought that these miracles would have been clearly apparent, and that they would not have had to look too far.[8-)]

[Gastines]

As a person who would be classed as a non-believer and puts 'religion' as the easiest way of controlling the masses[no pun intended ] On one trip around France, my wife and I did end up in Lourdes.I would say it was quite a moving experience,mainly because of the plight of many of the 'pilgrims'. It seemed to me to be a last resort for many people,believers or not, and who are we to take any hope away.

Regards.By St Malo

[chris pp]

I agree with you TU, but nobody knows why a placebo works other than that it probably / definitely creates a state of mind. Now it could just be that this "state of mind" allows something to happen that would normally be blocked or prevented. A miracle?  Does a miracle have to be a big thing or can there be little miracles?   

Why on earth am I writing all this stuff.?, I'm not even religious, well not exactly.

Chris

[Viv]

perhaps it depends on the viewpoint of the recipient of the 'miracle'?

I read recently about a lady in the UK who had been blind for decades, however following a heart attack she regained her sight. The doctors could not offer any medical explanation, obviously the woman was ecstatic, but I don't think she viewed this as a miracle.

I don't know if she is religious or not but perhaps a more ardent believer would aim to claim this a miracle?

[Dick Smith]

I am afraid you are missing the point.

In order for an effect to be ascribed to a cause there must be a causal link; proof, evidence. Or even, in the philosophy of science proposed by Karl Popper, disproof (nothing can be true unless it can be disproved).

Lack of evidence = lack of proof.

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.

[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?

Don't get me started on Lourdes [6]

I thought Popper was more about one proven refutation of a (previously 'proven') theory is all it takes to disprove it, not what you said Dick. Have I got to start again with the Ladybird book of philosophy?

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Dicksmith"]I am afraid you are missing the point.

In

order for an effect to be ascribed to a cause there must be a causal

link; proof, evidence. Or even, in the philosophy of science proposed

by Karl Popper, disproof (nothing can be true unless it can be

disproved).

Lack of evidence = lack of proof.

[/quote]

Which is fine as far as it goes in what could be called "simple"

systems where direct observation and measurement are possible. When it

comes to more tricky stuff like cosmology, particle physics or living

systems, for example, direct causal links are often very difficult to

establish and evidence indirect at the best. The direct causal link

between smoking and lung cancer is still a matter of debate (though the

statistical link is pretty compelling!).

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I cannot personally dismiss

out of hand the possibility of miricle cures or, indeed, other forms

devine intervention, though I confess I think them unlikely.

On the other hand, I think it rather good that humans are willing to

attempt approaches that by the convetions of the day appear irrational:

what amount of human progress has been made on the basis that something

feels only intuitively right?

[PossumGirl]

[quote user="Dicksmith"]PG - are you saying that Lourdes 'miracle cures' actually exist? You'd have proof of that, of course...

[/quote]

Dick, I think you have to separate the term "miracle" from that of "unexplained cure," which are two different things. Only the Catholic Church proclaims something a miracle.  The cures are examined over a long period of time (as long as 12 years) by an international team of doctors.

There are documents available which include medical tests, x-rays, etc., showing that people who were basically at death's door have been suddenly and inexpicably cured of their ailment.  The difference between an inexplicable cure at Lourdes and a remission, for example, is that the cures that occur at Lourdes are sudden and instantaneous.  They are accompanied by certain physical phenomenon that seem to be common to all the cases of cures.

I do NOT say, nor do I particularly believe, that these cures have anything to do with religion or the Virgin Mary.  I believe there is an unexplained phenomenon that occurs at Lourdes.  This could be an ability that all humans possess, but which only some are able to access.  Whatever the cause, clearly something occurs for some people at Lourdes, but does not occur, at, for example, a World Cup match.

It could be that the environment of Lourdes, with so many people there who clearly have a strong faith, acts as a triggering mechanism for those who are able to tap into it.

In any event, it is something that deserves open-minded inquiry and shouldn't be dismissed because of the commercial side of things in the streets outside of the sanctuary.

PG

[PossumGirl]

I interviewed the medical director of Lourdes a few years ago.  None of the cures go against the laws of nature: i.e., missing limbs do not regenerate.

However, cancerous tumors HAVE disappeared instantaneously and this is backed by x-rays, etc.  Those who are cured seem to know immediately that this has happened to them.

Part of the problem seems to be that term "miracle," which has religious connotations.  I am not a religious person, I was not raised in a religious household and my family was not Catholic, so I don't have any particular baggage in dealing with this issue.  I DO believe that we, as humans, do not know everything.  Every new discovery in physics, for example, proves that our understanding of matter and the functioning of the universe is seriously limited.

I like to think of that wonderful South African movie, "The Gods Must be Crazy." When the Bushman in the film had a coke bottle fall on his head from the sky, it seemed to be a miracle.  He had never seen an airplane, nor a coke bottle before and these were powerful, mysterious objects.  Why should we deny the existence of certain things, simply because we don't have explanations for their occurrance?

PG

[Gastines]

Tessa Jowell managed to get a £400.000 mortgage without knowing about it.Is that a miracle.?

[Beryl]

[quote user="Gastines"]Tessa Jowell managed to get a £400.000 mortgage without knowing about it.Is that a miracle.?[/quote]

 

LOL,  well her boss has got a 'hotline to heaven' [;)]

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="PossumGirl"]I interviewed the medical director of Lourdes a few years ago.  None of the cures go against the laws of nature: i.e., missing limbs do not regenerate.

However, cancerous tumors HAVE disappeared instantaneously and this is backed by x-rays, etc. 
[/quote]

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?

 

 

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="SaligoBay"]

[quote user="PossumGirl"]I interviewed the

medical director of Lourdes a few years ago.  None of the cures go

against the laws of nature: i.e., missing limbs do not regenerate.

However, cancerous tumors HAVE disappeared instantaneously and this is backed by x-rays, etc. 

[/quote]

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]

If the malfunctioning "switch" in the cancer cells could be somehow

persauded to operate normally and stop the uncontrolled division that

caused the cancer in the first place, then the cancer should halt its

growth. Eventually, as cells are renewed, the tumour would disappear,

in many parts of the body at least. It is thought that this might

occasionally happen, but, as far as I know, it cannot be stimulated

through therapy.

[SaligoBay]

As you say, eventually.   But instantaneously? 

And what if this happens to a non-believer elsewhere?  Does it count as a miracle?  

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="SaligoBay"]

And what if this happens to a non-believer elsewhere?  Does it count as a miracle?  

[/quote]

Divine or not, I think I might call it a miracle, yes.

It's not a common occurance, unhappily, and as to exact timeframes I

couldn't really say, but I would have thought weeks, months or years

more probable than hours, minutes or seconds. If you are interested I

can dig around and see what literature is available, but I don't know

how much is published on line.

[Monika]

I grew up in a place of Pilgrimage (St. Nikolaus, Patron Saint of Switzerland). And the healing of a tumour was one of the miracles which happened in my childhood. All doctors had given this lady up and it also vanished instantaneously, this was attested by two doctors, one very sceptical. The lady in question was very devout and  had travelled many times to his shrine. She must have had such a great believe and perhaps was on a spiritual level to a Indian Yogi. I think the catholic church even in those days were quite careful what they called a miracle.