Can we place belief in modern miracles? (good evdience says we can)
In debates of the last few weeks (histoircal Jesus) we have encountered many stamtents that leads one to bleieve that there is just no proof of any kind for miracles. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is good evidence for miracles happening today. But there are certain rules we have to observe. I have three major issues to argue for in this thread:
I. Miracles are limited and contextual
II. Science works by paradigm shifts, claims of the miraculous are forcing a pardigm shfit.
III. good evidence exists that the miraculous does happen.
I. miracles arel limited and contextual:
miracles are unexplianed events that defy our conventional understanding of the way the world works, but it is the religious context aht makes a miracle. Miracles need not be on the scale of parting the red sea. The total absolute disapearance of cancer over night is amazing; if this happens in the context of prayer as the only ched veriable in treatment, that is a miracle because the context if relgious and faith oriented.
Miracles do not need to violate the laws of physics. In fact with modern understanding of "laws of physics" they are just descritions of our observations in a regular and consistant universe. But we do not all have the same level of observation about the universe. Many dismiss miracle claims because they have never experinced them. But many have experienced them, making them part of the regular and consistant observation of the universe.
Miracles are not a matter of "proof" but of probablity.
II. Science works by paradigm shifts, claims of the miraculous are forcing a pardigm shfit.
2) Paradigm Shifts in last 30 years change materialist conceptions.
a. Medicine.
Medical paradigm shift *Medical Schools and Doctors accept Healing more readily.
Christian Science Monitory, Monday, Sept. 15, 1999
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/0 ... /us.6.html "Research Starts to Bridge GAp Between Prayer and Medicine.
"The growing dialogue between the disciplines of faith and medicine, was probed this past weekend at the Religion Newswriters Association's annual meeting here. Increasingly, medical institutions are exploring the role of prayer in healing. Three years ago, only three US medical schools in offered courses on spirituality and health. Today, there are 30."
This quotation is old, it's now 120 schools or so.
*Most Doctors Have experience with healing and medical opinion changing.
Ibid.
Larry Dossey, author of several books on the subject, says that he, like most doctors, has witnessed "miracle cures." But the quality of research on the subject varies greatly.
US TOO International, Inc.
Prostate Cancer Survivor Support Groups
US TOO Prostate Cancer Communicator Article
Volume No. 1, Issue No. 6 (January  June, 1997)
Survivor's Corner - Issue 6
"I am motivated to write about the healing power of prayer because many men I talk with are not only asking questions about prostate cancer statistics but have a feeling of being depressed after being diagnosed. Some are in a quandary as to what to do if PSA rises after treatment."
"A recent article was titled, "Physicians believe in the power of prayer," and stated that 269 doctors were surveyed and 99% said they were convinced that religious belief can heal."We've seen the power of belief," said Dr. Herbert Benson, author of Timeless Healing which offers scientific evidence that faith has helped to cure medical conditions. Prayer helps and the prayers of others can help in your recovery and healing."
* Good Studies Exist, Skeptics Pick On Worst Studies. Ibid. Skeptics, [Larry Dossey] says, tend to point to the weakest studies. Good scientific method, he says however, requires the medical community to look at the best work to "see what it shows us." Dr. Dossey adds that "I'm not trying to hold prayer hostage to science. I don't think prayer needs science to validate it."
III. good evidence exists that the miraculous does happen
MODERN MIRACLES HAVE STRICT RULES
BY DAVID VAN BIEMA
The paradox of human miracle assessment is that the only way to discern whether a phenomenon is supernatural is by having trained rationalists testify that it outstrips their training. Since most wonders admitted by the modern church are medical cures, it consults with doctors. Di Ruberto has access to a pool of 60 - "We've got all the medical branches covered," says his colleague, Dr. Ennio Ensoli - and assigns each purported miracle to two specialists on the vanquished ailment.
They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: "Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?" Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. "Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that's not enough." says Ensoli. "Exceptional doesn't mean inexplicable."
"Inexplicable," or inspiegabile, is the happy label that Di Ruberto, the doctors and several other clerics in the Vatican's "medical conference" give to a case if it survives their scrutiny. It then passes to a panel of theologians, who must determine whether the inexplicable resulted from prayer. If so, the miracle is usually approved by a caucus of Cardinals and the Pope.
Some find the process all too rigorous. Says Father Paolino Rossi, whose job, in effect, is lobbying for would-be saints from his own Capuchin order: "It's pretty disappointing when you work for years and years and then see the miracle get rejected." But others suggest it could be stricter still.
There is another major miracle-validating body in the Catholic world: the International Medical Committee for the shrine at Lourdes. Since miracles at Lourdes are all ascribed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, it is not caught up in the saint-making process, which some believe the Pope has running overtime. Roger Pilon, the head of Lourdes' committee, notes that he and his colleagues have not approved a miracle since 1989, while the Vatican recommended 12 in 1994 alone. "Are we too severe?" he wonders out loud. "Are they really using the same criteria?"
Modern miracles happen
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
A simple definition
A miracle is an event attributed to an act or intervention of a god.
These are not miracles:
1. Events that are unexplained due to insufficient investigation or information.
2. Events that are unexplained because they are beyond current knowledge.
3. Unexplained medical remissions from disease are not miracles, they are unexplained remissions.
4. Prayer induced remission is not a miracle if the prayer is performed by the subject, or the subject is aware that someone else is performing prayer. This is an unexplained remission, the effect of hope generated by belief, or the effect of suggestion.
5. Remission attributed to prayer if the subject and those surrounding the subject are not aware of the prayer. This is a coincidental unexplained remission.
A miracle is an event attributed to an act or intervention of a god.
These are not miracles:
1. Events that are unexplained due to insufficient investigation or information.
2. Events that are unexplained because they are beyond current knowledge.
3. Unexplained medical remissions from disease are not miracles, they are unexplained remissions.
4. Prayer induced remission is not a miracle if the prayer is performed by the subject, or the subject is aware that someone else is performing prayer. This is an unexplained remission, the effect of hope generated by belief, or the effect of suggestion.
5. Remission attributed to prayer if the subject and those surrounding the subject are not aware of the prayer. This is a coincidental unexplained remission.
- juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #3
Right. So which studies show an effect of prayer greater than that expected by chance alone?Miracles are not a matter of "proof" but of probablity.
All diseases have a "spontaneous remission" rate. Even death, since there is still the occasional case of someone being mistakenly thought to be dead. In other words, no matter how deadly a disease, there is always the chance that the diagnosis was wrong in the first place.
There are no well-documented "medical miracle" cases. This is particularly true of Catholic miracles, since they immediately impound any relevant records and have a millenium-old history of not letting anyone examine evidence they claim to have.
So, MetaC, why don't we examine one or two cases in detail? You pick...
DanZ
Miracles and Faith (companions)
Post #4Sure we can; but the "evidence" which takes anyone to that "belief", may not be truly convincing to all.Can we place belief in modern miracles?
And THAT is the overall nature or anatomy of "faith"
I KNOW there are unexplained things in my life that 'I' accept as miracles, but not everyone who listens to my take on those events, will necessarily take it as I myself have.
And that brings us back to promoting love and compassion as the primary tools of those who are spiritual (as opposed to being mainly or primarily "religious"). There are certain "signs" which tend to follow people who are like that (loving and compassionate); that's very hard to argue against.
You see love, compassion and those things which tend to "track" with them, are typically the things which HELP people and make this world better period. I surely cannot rule out God DOING SOMETHING DIRECTLY (supernaturally), because I do certainly believe in Him (and that's something else I cannot explain to everyone else).
I'm the type of person that things like MATH and deep intellectualism do not reveal much to. I realize the importance of those things to others and in life overall, but in my heart where both faith and reason reside, I gotta' FEEL/BELIEVE that which I would say is REAL to me.
Ever see two people who are married, but as you look at their relationship you wonder HOW/WHY they are together? (i.e. it's a "miracle" they are STILL together, or ever became a couple)

I do "believe" that miracles happen daily; I'm the type of person who sees "breathing" and being "healthy" as continuous/ongoing miracles. And although I'm interested in science, I won't be trying to explain-away a leg growing back, a person in pain relieved from it, or someone who likely SHOULD have died surviving. Science is so very important, but it's fair to say that it doesn't explain everything; it simply doesn't.
The concept of miracles makes sense to me, but I don't think we can really explain or prove them. What value they have to any given individual, is primarily a matter of "faith"; and that's rarely an insignificant thing.
-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-
Post #5
Your argument here is silly becasue there is no epistmeic basis for any kind of proof of a miracle. The best we can ever do is say "this is not explicable by naturalistic standards we consture them." there cannot be a designer label that says "miracle by God." But if the context is that of prayer then it has a religion tone it is a miralce.MrWhy wrote:A simple definition
A miracle is an event attributed to an act or intervention of a god.
These are not miracles:
1. Events that are unexplained due to insufficient investigation or information.
2. Events that are unexplained because they are beyond current knowledge.
3. Unexplained medical remissions from disease are not miracles, they are unexplained remissions.
the idea remission you need to research. skepics are always trying to label the Lourdes miracles as remissions and they don't even know what remission is. If a patient has a rotten lung due to black lung or some similar diesase and the very next day his lung is total new and no trace of black lung, that is not remission. Remsission is where it goes away gradually and in stages and most of them are plotted by probablity and understood by the numbers. in other words, we know the major probablities for remissinons of each major disease. But every trace disappearing over night is not remission!
4. Prayer induced remission is not a miracle if the prayer is performed by the subject, or the subject is aware that someone else is performing prayer. This is an unexplained remission, the effect of hope generated by belief, or the effect of suggestion.
Nope. Remssion does not mean the disease vanshes without trace. that is not remission. look it up. I warn you I wrote this argument with a doctor who studies Cahtolic miracles around the world. So I have good authority on all of this. Stop throwing around terms you don't really understand.
It's not a remssion at all, there is no logical reason to rule out a miracle if the subject knows about the prayer. I've heard anything so idiotc in life.5. Remission attributed to prayer if the subject and those surrounding the subject are not aware of the prayer. This is a coincidental unexplained remission.
Post #6
juliod wrote:Right. So which studies show an effect of prayer greater than that expected by chance alone?Miracles are not a matter of "proof" but of probablity.
all the one's that I use do. Lourdes and Casdrough.
By definition the Lourdes miracles have to in violation of the expected statistical norm or wont even get picked to be studies.
(1) remssion does not include total diseapearce overnight.All diseases have a "spontaneous remission" rate. Even death, since there is still the occasional case of someone being mistakenly thought to be dead. In other words, no matter how deadly a disease, there is always the chance that the diagnosis was wrong in the first place.
(2) remission is not immidate in proximity to prayer
(3) the term "spontaneous" in "spontaneous remssion" does not mean toal disapearnace overnight of all traces of disease. It means no agent that we know of has caused it. But the rates you speak of indicate that there is known probablity. For example you get Lukemia the doctor can say "there's a 30% chance this will go away by itself." But that will happen slowly in stages, maybe not completley. If you wake up the next day and there's no trace of the illness your doctor will be impressed. He will not say "I knew that would happen."
There are no well-documented "medical miracle" cases. This is particularly true of Catholic miracles, since they immediately impound any relevant records and have a millenium-old history of not letting anyone examine evidence they claim to have.
that's just a bold faced lie. I've been in contact with the Lourdes committee and I've asked to see the docs and theys ay I can. They will put them on the net eventaully and will sell them to you. I don't have the money to buy them, but you can get them. It's a huge lie. Their proceedings are publich they have their own medical journals that go into detal about it.
The Casdroph stuff is more facinating in some ways because he had doctors volunterring to exampine the stuff indpendently of any connection with a chruch. He got basically the whole staff of a hospital to examine the material and they concluded that the cases could not be explained.
So, MetaC, why don't we examine one or two cases in detail? You pick...
DanZ
which 2?
Last edited by Metacrock on Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Miracles and Faith (companions)
Post #7melikio wrote:Sure we can; but the "evidence" which takes anyone to that "belief", may not be truly convincing to all.Can we place belief in modern miracles?
And THAT is the overall nature or anatomy of "faith"
I KNOW there are unexplained things in my life that 'I' accept as miracles, but not everyone who listens to my take on those events, will necessarily take it as I myself have.
And that brings us back to promoting love and compassion as the primary tools of those who are spiritual (as opposed to being mainly or primarily "religious"). There are certain "signs" which tend to follow people who are like that (loving and compassionate); that's very hard to argue against.
You see love, compassion and those things which tend to "track" with them, are typically the things which HELP people and make this world better period. I surely cannot rule out God DOING SOMETHING DIRECTLY (supernaturally), because I do certainly believe in Him (and that's something else I cannot explain to everyone else).
I'm the type of person that things like MATH and deep intellectualism do not reveal much to. I realize the importance of those things to others and in life overall, but in my heart where both faith and reason reside, I gotta' FEEL/BELIEVE that which I would say is REAL to me.
Ever see two people who are married, but as you look at their relationship you wonder HOW/WHY they are together? (i.e. it's a "miracle" they are STILL together, or ever became a couple)I mean, that's the kind of thing we so often see, but we cannot necessarily explain. I'm willing to bet that the LOVE which brings MOST people together (gay, straight, whatever)... is something that many are at a loss to explain. All they know is that the OTHER person compliments the life of the other in such a way, that the benefits are practically unmistakable. I see such relationships as "miracles", but I don't imagine I could really explain them.
I do "believe" that miracles happen daily; I'm the type of person who sees "breathing" and being "healthy" as continuous/ongoing miracles. And although I'm interested in science, I won't be trying to explain-away a leg growing back, a person in pain relieved from it, or someone who likely SHOULD have died surviving. Science is so very important, but it's fair to say that it doesn't explain everything; it simply doesn't.
The concept of miracles makes sense to me, but I don't think we can really explain or prove them. What value they have to any given individual, is primarily a matter of "faith"; and that's rarely an insignificant thing.
-Mel-
It's all good. That's a fine appraoch you are talknig about. I'm definatley in favor of love and stuff. But why not have it all? It all fits togeher. God made barins and gave them to us to use. so why not use them? We can just use both, the brain and the heart.
People are different.
Post #8I see your approach also. I can't argue with you about this aspect too much; for ultimately my mind will just spin in circles, like a dog chasing its tail.It's all good. That's a fine appraoch you are talknig about. I'm definatley in favor of love and stuff. But why not have it all? It all fits togeher. God made barins and gave them to us to use. so why not use them? We can just use both, the brain and the heart.
Faith, hope, (especially) love (and miracles) DO all stem "together" somehow. I can't explain how that happens, and any degree to which I "intellectualize that I still fall far short of the value any of those things represent deep within me.
Still, I firmly hold to a point I believe is both true and humane; that we cannot necessarily prove any given miracle (or that we cannot assign value to miracles which others MUST accept).
After all, if one were to line up various stories, signs or attributes from the Bible (or life) and have me review them, I would almost always be moved most by the KINDNESS or LOVE that Jesus showed others; even those who didn't earn His favor.
THAT is what shows me I have any chance or opportunity to be "ok" with someone as great, massive and UNFATHOMABLE as the Creator God. And I talk about these things as if they are real, because I know they are about "faith", not things I must/will labor to "prove" to anyone in particular.
Jesus' love is the kind of miracle I'm consciously STUCK on. I know (or believe really hard) that the supernatural isn't explained so well by words alone, but better expressed by actions done in faith, which for lack of a better way of saying things "releases" the effects of what may be "spiritual". The Bible says "faith" without works is "dead". And I DECIDED a LONG time ago, that no matter how "real" someone thinks something is, I'm not going to pretend that I also believe or place value in simply because they do. Not to put them down, but to be "real" about the fact that people are different, and also believe in and value different things.
I've thought things through extensively in the past; sometimes it availed near-perfect answers (seemingly); other times I've failed MISERABLY at understanding even the most simple aspect of a concept or idea. Some things I understand better than many people do, other things that people appear to be comfortable with are things which baffle me to no end. I can place certain "miracles" easily into these two categories. And I definitely respect the reality that what others have seen or experienced in their own unique way/s, contributes significantly to what they can, can't, will or won't have "faith" or place "value" in.
People are different. Simple to say and understand generally; but incredibly profound in its specific and deeper meaning. And that is why I think/believe that LOVE is THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of what is "spiritual".
-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-
Post #9
Remission is the disappearance of signs and symptoms of a disease. If it happened suddenly, and there's no explanation it's still an unexplained remission.Metacrock wrote:
the idea remission you need to research. skepics are always trying to label the Lourdes miracles as remissions and they don't even know what remission is. If a patient has a rotten lung due to black lung or some similar diesase and the very next day his lung is total new and no trace of black lung, that is not remission. Remsission is where it goes away gradually and in stages and most of them are plotted by probablity and understood by the numbers. in other words, we know the major probablities for remissinons of each major disease. But every trace disappearing over night is not remission!
Under any definition, it's interesting that we don't see any well documented cases of remission where obvious, visible, missing limbs suddenly appear.
Was this one doctor a Catholic? A credible study would consist of a team of doctors, including some who did not have religious vested interest. Adequate, before and after, medical records would be necessary. If the team then declared some remissions were miracles instead of unexplained, then you would have something.Nope. Remssion does not mean the disease vanshes without trace. that is not remission. look it up. I warn you I wrote this argument with a doctor who studies Cahtolic miracles around the world. So I have good authority on all of this. Stop throwing around terms you don't really understand.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #10
Prove it happened. Show me a medicial Journal that details this incident. Show the 'before' and 'after' xrays. Give me a valid, non-biased source this even happened, and it is just not one of those urban myths.Metacrock wrote:Your argument here is silly becasue there is no epistmeic basis for any kind of proof of a miracle. The best we can ever do is say "this is not explicable by naturalistic standards we consture them." there cannot be a designer label that says "miracle by God." But if the context is that of prayer then it has a religion tone it is a miralce.MrWhy wrote:A simple definition
A miracle is an event attributed to an act or intervention of a god.
These are not miracles:
1. Events that are unexplained due to insufficient investigation or information.
2. Events that are unexplained because they are beyond current knowledge.
3. Unexplained medical remissions from disease are not miracles, they are unexplained remissions.
the idea remission you need to research. skepics are always trying to label the Lourdes miracles as remissions and they don't even know what remission is. If a patient has a rotten lung due to black lung or some similar diesase and the very next day his lung is total new and no trace of black lung, that is not remission. Remsission is where it goes away gradually and in stages and most of them are plotted by probablity and understood by the numbers. in other words, we know the major probablities for remissinons of each major disease. But every trace disappearing over night is not remission!
How come there are no prosetics at Lourdes?