Dick Smith Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Teamedup Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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 More sharing options...
SaligoBay Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 [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 More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 [quote user="Dicksmith"]If they did. Where is your proof, or are youbasing 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'texist. If we know about them they aren't mysterious or untapped.Eithershow proper proof that the miracles actually occurred - that is anexamination by more than one independent, reputable physician whocan diagnose a condition BEFORE the visit to Lourdes followed by anequally rigorous examination AFTERWARDS which shows that a spontaneouscure has occurred, or let it go. If you can't do that you ain'tgot diddly.[/quote]The things that we know about the human body are almost certainlyoutnumbered by the things that we do not know, particularly down atcellular level. Simple example: we produce millions of different typesof proteins, yet, so far, the role of only a few hundred areunderstood. For the rest, we haven't got a clue, though presumably theyare important. As far as biochemistry, molecular biology and geneticsare concerned, as a race we have hardly begun. The human body could becapable of all kinds of strange things given particular circumstances,including spontaneous cure (at a shrine or not). Getting these thingsto happen upon demand is clearly not possible (yet), so it would seemjustified to investigate what we have, however sceptical we might be.The things we do not know about the cosmos are legion; current modelsof the cosmos require the existence of somethings called "dark matter"and "dark energy" if the numbers are going to add up - together theseare supposed to make up 96% of the mass of the universe. Neither haveever been observed, and there is only the scantiest actual evidence atall for their existence. However, their existence has been inferredbecause we would otherwise have to throw out (amongst other things) theidea of the Big Bang and General Relativity. To me, this looks an awfullot like faith.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Deimos Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 [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 More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 "The things we do not know about the cosmos are legion; current modelsof the cosmos require the existence of somethings called "dark matter"and "dark energy" if the numbers are going to add up - together theseare supposed to make up 96% of the mass of the universe. Neither haveever been observed, and there is only the scantiest actual evidence atall for their existence. However, their existence has been inferredbecause we would otherwise have to throw out (amongst other things) theidea of the Big Bang and General Relativity. To me, this looks an awfullot 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 More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Bit of a side track from the thread (my fault as well). However, whenyou were taught creationism I bet it was in RE. Apparently theseChristian Fundamentalist schools are teaching it in Biology andScience. I think the class it is taught in put the presentation incontext. To start teaching religious dogma as science is maybemisleading to the children.Absolutely - but scientific dogma can be equally damaging: how long didit take for the idea that the continents move around on plates to beaccepted? A hundred years? Something like that - and that was in theface of scoops of evidence. I think it would be best to present ideasthat are to be challenged by science within the context of a sciencelesson. The emphasis has to be on balance. The existence of anyfundamentalist school in the UK should really be a matter of concern -is that strange creature currently in charge of education in the UKreally a member of opus dei? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Yes, I'm afraid she is. She's admitted it publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Most Holy Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 [quote user="Patf"] Another angle on this- did anyone see the programme made byKathy Sykes on the placebo effect? Some of the results eg the kneeoperation were almost miraculous. Pat.[/quote]I watched that program with enormous interest. Some of the experimentsshe reported were indeed amazing, tho possibly not quite in the sameleague as the Lourdes cures. What disappointed me was that DrSykes failed to offer any theories to explain how the placebo effectworks. Mind over matter? Can the human body synthesize its own drugs?And if so, how? In the end, she failed to analyze the very phenomenonshe was reporting. Dr Sykes is hardly the first scientist to have charted these waters. In1893, Prof. Charcot, one of the founders of modern neurology (who laterinfluenced Janet and Freud), published his own explanation of the curesof 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 acure. All this is interesting, but ultimately strikes me as replacing one"faith" by another. Any theory who relies on "cerebral process" toexplain a physiological phenomenon might as well rely on the VirginMary.The investigation goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Most Holy Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 [quote user="Dicksmith"]Either show proper proof that the miraclesactually occurred - that is an examination by more than oneindependent, reputable physician who can diagnose a conditionBEFORE the visit to Lourdes followed by an equally rigorous examinationAFTERWARDS which shows that a spontaneous cure has occurred, or let itgo. 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 youwish to genuinely inform yourself and are prepared to cover the costsof photocopying and postage, I'd be happy to send you copies of medicalreports. You should plan on several hundred pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 You might be interested to read a sceptical point of view on this at the Randi Foundation forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Most Holy Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 [quote user="Teamedup"]Who knows why these things work. I do not believe in entity inducedmiracles. I do know some things are incredible and miraculous thoughand I daresay that one day science will have an explanation. [/quote]That is exactly my attitude, and that of all the scientistsinterested in investigating the frontiers of medicine. Antibiotics might have seemed miraculous to a 10th century man. Thefact 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 More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 [quote user="Dicksmith"]"The things we do not know about the cosmos are legion; current modelsof the cosmos require the existence of somethings called "dark matter"and "dark energy" if the numbers are going to add up - together theseare supposed to make up 96% of the mass of the universe. Neither haveever been observed, and there is only the scantiest actual evidence atall for their existence. However, their existence has been inferredbecause we would otherwise have to throw out (amongst other things) theidea of the Big Bang and General Relativity. To me, this looks an awfullot like faith"There is a fallacy (or two) here.Firstof all the fact that we are unable to fully explain that which wetheorise is normal, all theories are provisional. That does not meanthat they are wrong, unsupported by evidence or 'a matter of faith', itmeans that scientists recognise that they are a work in progress andshould be modified in the light of new knowledge. They do not assumethem whole and then believe in them uncritically. Many creationistsmake this point about the 'theory' of evolution, as did Tony Blair.This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method and thecharacteristics which distinguish it from faith. Or the world ofwoo-woo.It is a fallacy to claim that phenomena which have beeninferred (and that is a logical process, not guesswork or imagination)require 'faith'. They require experimental proof, and you will not finda single scientist in the known universe who would tell you anydifferent. That is how they work, the scientific method is central, andthat requires repeatable (important that) experimental proof.Yourknowledge of dark matter is, I think, weak. It is used as a portmanteauterm for that which has not been encountered but has been inferred byscientific calculation, not by guesswork or imagination. In fact a lotof it is now being postulated in supermassive black holes at thecentres of galaxies (and these have been observed, or at least theireffects have been as you can't see a black hole).To correct yourfigures, 4% of the universe is visible, 23% is dark matter, theremainder is dark energy. It is this sort of inaccuracy ofconceptualisation, language and statistics which compound a basic lackof understanding to produce statements about faith. If you misrepresentthe 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 understandingof relativity is pretty good and I can understand the implications ofwhat is being said. I am not trying to present any truth, merelyillustrating that there is a huge amount about the universe that is notclearly understood. I would stand by my assertation that there iscurrently no direct evidence ("experimantal proof" if you prefer) ofeither of these quantities, and there is a fair body of opinion withincosmology that have doubts about the whole idea - me, I haven't got anclue about the likelihood or otherwise of it being right. Not really myfield. However, there are a lot of people extrapolating a long waybased on the presumption (without actual proof) that both thesequantities do exist, and that is a looks to me something like a leap offaith. Imagine how disappointed they will be if they find out that theuniverse is held together with Copydex or something.Please don't make the error of assuming that I am some kind of ravingcreationist, because I most certainly am not. I do, however, have anopen mind and a habit of not discarding ideas out of hand. I likeproof, not dogma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Most Holy Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 [quote user="SaligoBay"]I'm not denying that these things happen. I'm not denyingthat they're worthy of study in themselves. But the best thingwould be to separate them altogether from any connection with religion,and study them scientifically. That way there's at least a chanceof getting a reasonable answer. If you add religion in it justbecomes 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 someother thing. [/quote]I'm in perfect agreement with you. Religion does complicatethings somewhat. I'm an agnostic myself (the "pseudonym" is a homage toa famous comic-book character that pointedly satirized religion ingeneral and the Catholic Church in particular.)If you're willing to take my word for it without tons of data dumpedhere, you should keep in mind that (a) these unexplained cures happen alot more than you seem to think, and it is not that unique thing youseem to think it is, and (b) 1963 is not very "old" -- it takes 10 to20 years to comprehensively review and study those sort of phenomena.Ideally, if we could understand how a person can be curedthoroughly, quickly and definitively (that's where the time factorcomes into play, remission, you know) of things that are incurable byour current level of medical science ... I need not spell out theenormous benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Most Holy Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 [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 theviewpoint of a stage magician seriously, over that of professionaldoctors, professors and medical journals? Other than debunking UriGellers the man has no qualifications. He's an American showman whoknows how to exploit the gullible "skeptiks" and has made a fortunedoing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Monika Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Do you have any reasons to believe that, or is it just something you would like to happen? It really is quite important to be able to tell the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monika Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Viv Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 [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 More sharing options...
Patmobile Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Deimos Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 [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 More sharing options...
Missy Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 [{] 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.