Evidence of miracles.

[NxNW]

People like that shopkeeper give the Catholic Church a bad name.

Why did the last Pope resign?

 

[Buzzard3]

Why did the last Pope resign?

I don't know. Tell me.

 

[Buzzard3]

But of course sceptics much prefer the disgruntled magicians Randi's opinion instead! How can anyone give him equal weight of opinion when compared to the great and good of medical professors of france? That is how unscientific sceptics ALWAYS are against phenomena they do not "like". They prefer Randi's opinion even to a nobel laureate medic who witnessed such a healing and wrote a book on it.

Well said. Bizarrely, atheists dismiss the opinions of the medical professors of France in favour of the opinion of a bozo (and fellow-atheist) like James Randi - a high school dropout with no scientific training or experience whatsoever.
Oh well, no one said atheism had to make sense.

To those who are determined to reject God, no amount of evidence of his existence will ever be enough. Sad.

 

[Buzzard3]

Oh, that nonsense again.

Please explain how an exhaustive process (which sometimes takes years) based on the opinion of independent medical and scientific experts amounts to "nonsense".

The Catholic Church is not stupid. She realizes that her reputation is as stake when declaring miracles, so the Church approaches any claim of a miracle with not just caution, but with a healthy dose of skepticism as well. It is only after exhausting all possible natural explanations and consulting the relevant scientific experts that a miracle is declared.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Please explain how an exhaustive process (which sometimes takes years) based on the opinion of independent medical and scientific experts amounts to "nonsense".

The Catholic Church is not stupid. She realizes that her reputation is as stake when declaring miracles, so the Church approaches any claim of a miracle with not just caution, but with a healthy dose of skepticism as well. It is only after exhausting all possible natural explanations and consulting the relevant scientific experts that a miracle is declared.

I think you overestimate how much they care about that reputation regarding "miracles". After all who is it that actually cares that an alleged healing miracle is true? Secular doctors? (No) Non-Christians? (No) Protestants? (Not really) Catholics? (mostly)

Do all Catholics care about the evidence? No.

Some will accept the miracle claim without any evidence, just the say-so of Church authorities. Others will, no doubt, find the claim that it is proven to bring extra comfort and certainty, but won't have any interest in the actual evidence. Then there are those that want to believe, but need proof or prefer the psychological support of evidence for their beliefs. (I hesitate to use the word faith as a popular NT definition is failing here.) Are this latter group busy trying to tear apart the Church's claims or do they just want the appearance of vigor so that they will be satisfied in accepting the miracle?

These medical miracles are "proved" by showing that people with a certain condition don't recover and the patient has "recovered/been cured/go into remission" when that (almost) never happens. Demonstrating a cause for long tail events is difficult.

So who would lower their assessment of the reputation of the Church if these were not properly studied "miracles" and the methodology was fraudulent? Secular doctors? (No, they just go on treating patients.) Protestants? (No, and many of them would be searching for the heresy of the claim in the first place.) Non-christians? (no) Regular lay Catholics? (Not really, they didn't need the proof in the first place.) The only ones who might lower their assessment of the Church are those who *need* there to be evidence, who will defend it against outside critics, etc.

 

[Mountainmike]

I think you overestimate how much they care about that reputation regarding "miracles". After all who is it that actually cares that an alleged healing miracle is true? Secular doctors? (No) Non-Christians? (No) Protestants? (Not really) Catholics? (mostly)

Do all Catholics care about the evidence? No.

Some will accept the miracle claim without any evidence, just the say-so of Church authorities. Others will, no doubt, find the claim that it is proven to bring extra comfort and certainty, but won't have any interest in the actual evidence. Then there are those that want to believe, but need proof or prefer the psychological support of evidence for their beliefs. (I hesitate to use the word faith as a popular NT definition is failing here.) Are this latter group busy trying to tear apart the Church's claims or do they just want the appearance of vigor so that they will be satisfied in accepting the miracle?

These medical miracles are "proved" by showing that people with a certain condition don't recover and the patient has "recovered/been cured/go into remission" when that (almost) never happens. Demonstrating a cause for long tail events is difficult.

So who would lower their assessment of the reputation of the Church if these were not properly studied "miracles" and the methodology was fraudulent? Secular doctors? (No, they just go on treating patients.) Protestants? (No, and many of them would be searching for the heresy of the claim in the first place.) Non-christians? (no) Regular lay Catholics? (Not really, they didn't need the proof in the first place.) The only ones who might lower their assessment of the Church are those who *need* there to be evidence, who will defend it against outside critics, etc.

Which “ they” do you have in mind in saying “ they care?”
the church certainly cares which is why it put in such a detailed process. It does not comment till after the medical commission has already concluded, and often not even then.

Contrary to the oft quoted myth by atheists , the church does not welcome or encourage such phenomena and is certainly very late to comment on them. On many phenomena such as Lourdes and Fatima the church was hostile, let alone sceptical. It does not want the attention and ratifies only grudgingly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which “ they” do you have in mind in saying “ they care?”
the church certainly cares which is why it put in such a detailed process. It does not comment till after the medical commission has already concluded, and often not even then.

Just fill in whomever you want to fit your narrative. It's what this thread has been about for a long time now.

Contrary to the oft quoted myth by atheists , the church does not welcome or encourage such phenomena and is certainly very late to comment on them. On many phenomena such as Lourdes and Fatima the church was hostile, let alone sceptical. It does not want the attention and ratifies only grudgingly.

It's an atheist myth now? Cool. We could use some since we rejected all of the gods and their associated myths.

As for the alleged "selectiveness" of the Church in designating Genuine Miracles(tm), sounds like nice cover. Pre-certification the pilgrims come and pay their fares and then if you can get certified, bingo! And the Church can let everyone know their miracles are "proven" and dismiss as frauds any so detected. Seems like a nice scheme.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Contrary to the oft quoted myth by atheists , the church does not welcome or encourage such phenomena and is certainly very late to comment on them. On many phenomena such as Lourdes and Fatima the church was hostile, let alone sceptical. It does not want the attention and ratifies only grudgingly.

How long did it take to canonise Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II? I don't know what miracles JP is supposed to have performed but Teresa's were certainly not rigorously investigated and the available stories are inconsistent. That doesn't really indicate grudging and late ratification.

 

[Mountainmike]

The discussion was in the context of Lourdes miracles.

How long did it take to canonise Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II? I don't know what miracles JP is supposed to have performed but Teresa's were certainly not rigorously investigated and the available stories are inconsistent. That doesn't really indicate grudging and late ratification.

 

[Mountainmike]

I asked you what you had in mind?
Fair question.

Just fill in whomever you want to fit your narrative. It's what this thread has been about for a long time now.


It's an atheist myth now? Cool. We could use some since we rejected all of the gods and their associated myths.

As for the alleged "selectiveness" of the Church in designating Genuine Miracles(tm), sounds like nice cover. Pre-certification the pilgrims come and pay their fares and then if you can get certified, bingo! And the Church can let everyone know their miracles are "proven" and dismiss as frauds any so detected. Seems like a nice scheme.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The discussion was in the context of Lourdes miracles.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise there was a separate protocol for Lourdes. And Fatima, I guess?

 

[NxNW]

I don't know.

He gave the Catholic Church a bad name.

 

[NxNW]

Well said. Bizarrely, atheists dismiss the opinions of the medical professors of France in favour of the opinion of a bozo (and fellow-atheist) like James Randi - a high school dropout with no scientific training or experience whatsoever.

That high school dropout found flaws and inconsistencies in the medical professors' work, which I explained earlier in the thread. He had a great deal of experience finding flaws in other "scientific" studies because most studies don't take into account the possibility of fraud and dishonesty.

Oh well, no one said atheism had to make sense.

Atheism makes sense.

To those who are determined to reject God, no amount of evidence of his existence will ever be enough.

Still waiting for the slightest shred of evidence. Fraudulent "studies" don't count.

Sad.

Agreed.

 

[NxNW]

How long did it take to canonise Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II? I don't know what miracles JP is supposed to have performed but Teresa's were certainly not rigorously investigated and the available stories are inconsistent. That doesn't really indicate grudging and late ratification.

And a closer look at Mother Teresa indicates some very un-saintly behavior.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And a closer look at Mother Teresa indicates some very un-saintly behavior.

But since she had nothing to do with Lourdes, that's irrelevant to how the Catholic Church goes about its business.

 

[NxNW]

But since she had nothing to do with Lourdes, that's irrelevant to how the Catholic Church goes about its business.

Right, just pointing that out since she came up.

 

[Buzzard3]

He gave the Catholic Church a bad name.

Really? How so?

 

[Buzzard3]

That high school dropout found flaws and inconsistencies in the medical professors' work, which I explained earlier in the thread. He had a great deal of experience finding flaws in other "scientific" studies because most studies don't take into account the possibility of fraud and dishonesty.

You think a high school dropout with no scientific training or experience whatsoever is qualified to find flaws in scientific studies produced by French professors. That's pretty funny.

Brother, how gullible are you?

Still waiting for the slightest shred of evidence. Fraudulent "studies" don't count.

Atheists don't find of evidence of God's existence bcoz they don't look, and they don't look bcoz they don't want to look. A closed mind sees only what it wants to see.

 

[NxNW]

Really? How so?

Former pope Benedict admits making false claim to child sexual abuse inquiry

Former pope Benedict accused of inaction over child sexual abuse cases

 

[Hans Blaster]

Atheists don't find of evidence of God's existence bcoz they don't look, and they don't look bcoz they don't want to look. A closed mind sees only what it wants to see.

This challenge by Randi isn't about evidence for god, but rather about a specific set of claims.

I used to be in a horrible church and I was never encouraged to go look for evidence of god. Instead I was told god existed and commanded to believe. If you wanted evidence of god they might suggest it was all around and plain to see. (It wasn't.)