Modern miracles happen

[Metacrock]

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?"

[Quixotic]

Got to say i sat down ages ago now to have a quick read. This is my fave thread ever!!!!

There is such an obvious flaw with the idea of medical miracles. Even if:

1)Someone had a disease and no one thought he had any chance of surviving
2)The person was fine
3) A prayer was given

That is no proof of some divine being arriving and changing the material world for the good of this one person.

Unless it was something measurable (ie suddenly wounds healed, got all blood back, grew new limb head re-attached (ie things which lie outside of things which are logically possible) then there is no suggestion of divine intervention. As far as I am aware this has never happened. If it has show the world and you will change everything!

It has been said that this kind of cure does not happen due to some kind of boundary. This does not make any sense! Why would God being all powerful not cure someone just because then it appears to be him doing it. Only curing people, not based on criteria such as the number of people asking him, or how good the person was in life. No the important thing is we can see him do anything outside of possibility!

This means the only way to detect miracles is through statistical evidence. To prove miracles a good study would have to show that someone is more likely to survive against the odds through prayer than with no prayer with proper control groups ensuring no bias from the placebo effect. in fact all such studies have show those who are being prayed for are actually less likely to pull through (probably due to increased stress).

After these arguments what do you have left? Only you putting a person together and surviving inexplicably against the odds and someone praying for them. But again while not just performing miracles which are not directly observable God also makes sure they are statistically as likely to survive inexplicably anyway. So he does not actually need to do anything anyway!

Now all you have is YOUR association between miracles and prayers. Where in fact blue tile floors brown curtains in the vicinity, people buying coffee or going to the toilet have just as much correlation to the prayer.

And further to this just to ensure there really is nothing left, what about all the people who are prayed for and they are not cured? or people who pray for good health and die inexplicably? Are they some kind of anti miracle?

Unfortunately metacrock logic, and statistics are heavily against you.

Not to mention the lack of proof that there is in fact a God in the first place or that it did in fact whizz down here to cure someone in an unlikely though not impossible manor which isn't detectable or obvservable.

Just following your logic you need to offer not just evidence that prayer helps people (which there is none) (a few examples where it does does not make a case, see the tiles floors), or that some people attribute these to miracles, you need to show the way in which the miracle happened.

FYI I too am heavily dyslexic, it is no excuse for not using spell checker. In facti consider it rude to not do so. This type of discussion is tough enough to read without having to translate words and sentences.

Apologies for the spelling if its crappy (notice the reasonable attitude)

[docphilip]

So I would again request the name of the doctor friend who gave you the information and investigates "Catholic" miracles.

Philip Nino Tan-Gatue

his website (tell him Metacrock sent you)

http://www.chimed.exofire.net/

Ok, I looked up this Dr. Tan-Gatue. He has legitimate credentials and practices alternative medicine as another option to conventional medicine rather than replacing it altogether, he seeks to combine both alternative and conventional medicine.. But on his site, I could find no reference to him investigating miracles for the Catholic church. Did I get my requests mixed up on which doctor I was referring to?

we are friends. I happen to know about that from our private talks. Its not something makes public, because he's only a couple of years out of medical school and has to build a reputation before he starts talking "miracles." He did his investigations for his faith not be a professional miracle researcher.

In other words, you claim that Dr. Tan-Gatue supports that there are real miracles, but he will not make the claim publicly so the claim is worthless and unverifiable.

Hi I'm Dr. Philip Tan-Gatue and I stumbled upon this post while googling my name (for fun).

I just want to clarify that I am NOT an official "miracle checker" for the Catholic Church but I do my own informal investigations for my own curiosity and for *maybe* compiling them into a book or submitting them to the proper scientific journals. However, I do not want to speak of them publicly because I am still awaiting the final judgement of the local bishop regarding the cases involved. For a cure to be considered miraculous one of the requisites is that it is LASTING (it actually stands the test of time). This is what prevents me from speaking on these things publicly.

Also I have another goal driving me, that of integrating the best of conventional and complementary medicine together. That actually takes up more of my time.

However, an interesting resource for modern miracles are the published, obtainable medical reports about the most recent cures at Lourdes, France.

[Lotan]

Hi I'm Dr. Philip Tan-Gatue and I stumbled upon this post while googling my name (for fun).

Hi Dr. Phil!

Sorry!

Has your research led you to any conclusions regarding the (in)effectiveness of intercessory prayer?

[docphilip]

Speaking from personal experience, there are two interesting cases that MAY be miraculous in nature, but I am still awaiting the judgment of the Church on this matter.

However, I can speak freely on one particular case which was published in a local newspaper (The Philippine Star, July 2003 - will have to look for the article again, sorry.)

I have personally spoken to the surgeon in this case.

Patient is a 50ish male with a gangrenous leg about to be amputated. Leg was checked and bandaged one last time before the patient was wheeled into OR. Patient's wife says a prayer and then heads to the chapel.

Surgeon claims that in the OR, with patient already prepped and anesthetised, surgeon feels the need to check the leg again.

No gangrene.

Amputation called off.

Will look for the article to supply more details.

In the meantime, we should look at the Lourdes Medical Bureau, which I had been to several years ago but could not join because I had not yet earned my license yet (heh heh).

"The bureau is led by a single doctor. The current head is Dr. Patrick Theillier. The bureau has a modest office within the Domain (the large area of consecrated ground surrounding the shrine and owned by the Church).

Any doctors practising in or visiting Lourdes may apply to become members of the Lourdes Medical Bureau. Additionally, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists and members of other allied health professions may apply to become members. Members are given (and invited to wear) a small but distinctive badge displaying a red cross on a white background surmounted by the word Credo ("I believe"). However, members of any religious affiliation or none are welcomed.

Members are requested to notify the bureau of any visits which they make to Lourdes.

The Lourdes Medical Bureau publishes its own quarterly journal, Fons Vitae ("Fountain of Life") which is circulated to members. Additionally, case-reports of interest are circulated to members for perusal.

"Approximately 35 claims per year are brought to the attention of the Lourdes Medical Bureau. Most of these are dismissed quickly. Three to five each year are investigated more thoroughly, by drawing up a Medical Bureau, comprising any doctors who were present in Lourdes at the time the apparent cure took place (this is the rationale for all members to notify the bureau of their visits to Lourdes).

The Medical Bureau investigates the claim, by examining the patient, the casenotes, and any test results (which can include biopsies, X-rays, CT scans, blood test results, and so on).

If this conference decides that further investigation is warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines from around the world (and of different religious beliefs). CMIL meets annually. A full investigation requires that one of its members investigates every detail of the case in question, and immerses him/herself in the literature around that condition to ensure that up-to-date academic knowledge is applied to the decision. This investigator may also consult with other colleagues about the case.

This information is presented at a CMIL meeting. Also present at the meeting are the head of the Lourdes Medical Bureau and the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes (currently this is Jacques Perrier). The cured subject is not normally present.

For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:

* The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
* The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
* The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
* The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
* The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
* The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

CMIL is not entitled to pronounce a cure "miraculous"; this must be done by the Church. The bureau may only pronounce that a cure is "medically inexplicable". A full investigation takes a minimum of five years (in order to ensure that the cure is permanent), and may take as long as ten or twelve years. It is recognised that, in rare cases, even advanced malignant disease or severe infection may spontaneously resolve.

The CMIL board votes on each case presented. A two-thirds majority is required for CMIL to pronounce a cure "inexplicable".

If CMIL decides a cure is medically inexplicable, the case is referred to the Bishop of the diocese where the cured subject lives. It is he who, in consultation with his own experts and with the Vatican, makes the decision about whether a cure is "miraculous". He may, for whatever reason, refute the claim.

Jacques Perrier, the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, made a statement concerning the question of miracles in Lourdes. The bishop wishes to have a new approach to cures in Lourdes, especially concerning the different stages of recognising them. In his words: “For the Church, as well as for the believer, a pilgrimage to Mary is more than a journey to a miracle. It is a journey of love, of prayer and of the suffering community.” [1]"

[docphilip]

Notable Lourdes cases:

Jeanne Fretel

Visited Lourdes: 10th May 1948.

Age 31, a student nurse from Rennes, France. Tubercular peritonitis with complications for seven years, extreme emaciation and oscillating fever. Comatose when brought to Lourdes, was given a tiny fragment of the Eucharist and awoke. Reported being "instantly and permanently cured" later that night while lying in her wheelchair beside the spring. She had not yet bathed in or drunk the water. Her cure was recognised officially on 11th November 1950.

Brother Léo Schwager

Visited Lourdes: 30th April 1952.

Age 28, from Fribourg, Switzerland. Multiple sclerosis for five years. His cure was recognised on 18th December 1960.

Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon

Visited Lourdes: 15th May 1952.

Age 34, from Bouille-Loretz, France. Multiple sclerosis for three years. Her cure was recognised on 16th July 1956.

Marie Bigot

Visited Lourdes: 8th October 1953 and 10th October 1954.

Age 32, from La Richardais, France. Arachnoiditis of posterior fossa (blindness, deafness, hemiplegia). Her cure was recognised on 15th August 1956.

Ginette Nouvel, born Ginette Fabre

Visited Lourdes: 21 September 1954.

Age 26, from Carmaux, France. Budd-Chiari syndrome (supra-hepatic venous thrombosis). Her cure was recognised on 31st May 1963.

Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli

Visited Lourdes: 5 June 1958.

Age 27, from Patti, Italy. Tuberculous osteoarthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right leg. Her cure was recognised on 26th May 1965.

Juliette Tamburini

Visited Lourdes: 17 July 1959.

Age 22, from Marseilles, France. Femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years. Her cure was recognised on 11th May 1965.

Vittorio Micheli

Visited Lourdes: 1st June 1963.

Age 23, from Scurelle, Italy. Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumour so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralysed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain and could walk. By February 1964 the tumour was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. His cure was recognized on 26th May 1976.

Serge Perrin

Visited Lourdes: 1st May 1970.

Age 41, from Lion D'Angers, France. Recurrent right hemiplegia, with ocular lesions, due to bilateral carotid artery disorders. Symptoms, which included headache, impaired speech and vision, and partial right-side paralysis began without warning in February 1964. During the next six years he became wheelchair-confined, and nearly blind. While on pilgrimage to Lourdes in April 1970, he felt a sudden warmth from head to toe, his vision returned, and he was able to walk unaided. His cure was recognised on 17th June 1978.

Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa

Visited Lourdes: 24th December 1976.

Age 12, from Paterno, Italy. Ewing's sarcoma of right knee. Offered amputation by her doctors, her mother refused and took her to Lourdes instead. On returning to Italy, her tumour rapidly regressed until no remaining evidence existed, although it left her tibia angulated, which required an operation (osteotomy) to correct. Her cure was recognised on 28th June 1989. She went on to become a nurse.

Jean-Pierre Bély

Visited Lourdes: 9th October 1987.

Age 51, French. Multiple sclerosis. His cure was recognised on 9th February 1999.

On a personal note, I have copies of case files (medical reports, diagnostic films such as X-rays and MRIs, official documents) from the cases of Delizia Cirolli,Vittorio Michelli and Serge Perrin. I would LOVE to get the MRI results for Jean Pierre Bely!

[docphilip]

Jean Pierre Bely case:

SCIENCE SURRENDERS TO THE INEXPLICABLE
Jean-Pierre Bely Was Instantly Cured of Multiple Sclerosis

LOURDES 11 FEB 99 (ZENIT).

Lourdes witnessed once again another miracle. At 10 a.m. in the underground basilica, during the solemn celebration of the World Day of the Sick, Bishop Jacques Perrier of Lourdes and Tarbes, officially proclaimed the ecclesiastical approval of a miracle which took place two years ago in the grotto and was meticulously verified by the Office of Medical Verification.

It is the story of Jean-Pierre Bely, who was then 51 years old, married, the father of two children, who was suffering from a severe form of multiple sclerosis. He was cured instantly, completely, and lastingly during a pilgrimage to Lourdes.

Jean-Pierre Bely's story is recounted in the 'Lourdes Magazine' (http://www.lourdes-france.com), a publication of the Lourdes Shrine. Bely was born on August 24, 1936. By profession, he was an anesthesia and intensive-care nurse. In 1972 he began to suffer growing neurological incapacity, which eventually was diagnosed as multiple sclerosis. By 1984 he was walking with a cane, and in 1985 he required a wheelchair. Two years later, he was in a devastating state: bedridden, he received a 100% invalidity pension and an allowance for a third person to look after him.

In October, 1987, Jean-Pierre Bely went on pilgrimage to Lourdes. After celebrating the Sacrament of Reconciliation in the sick room on October 8, Bely received the Sacrament of the Sick the next day during Mass in the Rosary Square. He was part of the French Rosary Pilgrimage. All of a sudden, he was overcome by a powerful sense of interior liberation and peace, something he had never experienced before.

On Friday, October 9 at midday, while lying in the sick room he experienced a sense of cold which grew stronger and became painful only to give way to a subsequent feeling of warmth which grew in intensity. Bely sat on the edge of his bed and was able to move his arms. The following night, although in a deep sleep, he woke up suddenly and discovered he could walk -- for the first time, since 1984.

At the end of the pilgrimage, Bely traveled to the station in his wheelchair, so as not to appear different from his "companions in sickness." But by the time he reached the train, he decided to enter alone and remain seated during the return journey to his home town of Angouleme. He had regained the complete use of his physical faculties, and the medical reports showed no trace of illness.

Jean-Pierre Bely came to declare his cure to the Medical Bureau of Lourdes the following year, on Thursday, October 6. Since then, he has been seen annually by the doctors and, by his neurologist and the head of the Department of Neurology of the University Hospital of Poitiers.

On June 17, 1992 a first consultation was carried out at the request of the International Medical Committee of Lourdes (CMIL), the second level of examination at the shrine. The conclusion: "such a cure is not just unusual but inexplicable." In November, 1992, the Committee called for a further two-year delay to respect the criteria of a definitive cure.

After additional examinations and consultations, on November 14, 1998, following a majority vote of the members of CMIL, the following statement was issued. "It is possible to conclude, with a good margin of probability, that Mr. Bely suffered an organic infection of the multiple sclerosis type in a severe and advanced stage of which the sudden cure during a pilgrimage to Lourdes corresponds with an unusual and inexplicable fact to all the knowledge of science. It is impossible for medical science to say anything more today. It is for the religious authorities, however, to make a pronouncement on the other dimensions of this cure." The document was written in Lourdes on February 9, 1999 by Dr. Patrick Thellier, Resident Doctor and Doctor-in-Charge of the Medical Bureau.

Later, Bishop of Angulema, Claude Dagens, wrote: "In the name of the Church, I publicly recognize the authentic character of the cure that Mr. Jean-Pierre Nely received in Lourdes on October 9, 1987. This immediate and complete cure is a personal gift of God to this person and an effective sign of Christ the Savior through the intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes."

[juliod]

Will look for the article to supply more details.

We would be looking for an article in a real medical journal, not a Phillipine newspaper (where medical miracle claims are very common).

I hope you are not expecting us to be impressed even slightly by what you have posted. We are all familiar with Lourdes claims. As far as I know, none of them have even the slightest substantiation.

DanZ

[docphilip]

I wasn't hoping that you would be impressed by articles but that at least you would acknowledge that the Church does not declare cures miraculous left and right. And I do have scientific reports from French and Italian sources, just not of cures PERSONALLY witnessed. THat's why I do not speak of them publicly yet.

This is where I feel there is a catch 22. I remain silent to gather more evidence, and I am criticized for keeping silent. I speak up a little, and my evidence isn't good enough. But I digress.

Also, if any "miraculous" cures are reported in journals, I find that skeptics are so quick to criticize them and doubt them, as is the case of this paper I am preparing about the case of reduced tremors in a Parkinson's patient I am treating with acupuncture to complement his selegeline and dopamine precursor treatment.

Forgive me, but I really believe that even if I quote from scientific journals, most hard line skeptics will still not believe. And I speak both of religious skeptics and complementary medicine skeptics.

Still, I shall do my best to try to satisfy.

And yes, there are many reports of cures in Philippine media, yet many of them can also be immediately debunked. This case I mentioned happened only 4 years ago, and the hospital authorities have submitted the case to the local bishop, who has yet is still waiting to see if the cure is permanent or if a re-infection will occur. After all, it COULD be temporary spontaneous remission, as is the case with some cancers.

[docphilip]

An exceprt from interview with a physician who voted AGAINST Jean Pierre Bely's claim of a miraculous cure.

Jean-Pierre Bely: "My medical files and records were sent to the medical bureau here in Lourdes complete with a letter from me and one by my GP explaining the stages and experience of my illness. The medical bureau asked if they could examine my case - the illness and the cure. I felt very reticent because of the time it would take. The whole process took about eleven years - each year I would meet bodies of doctors sometimes as many as a hundred at any one time. They would ask me numerous questions - intimate questions that were about very personal aspects of my life. I found the whole thing rather unpleasant but I answered these questions because I thought that it would help others. They also put me through all sorts of tests including one for my brain - magnetic resonance imaging. At one stage I thought that they were checking to see if I was right in the head. Eventually, in 1999, they decided to close my medical file and the case was referred to the bishop."

Raj Persaud: It's the job of the job of the international committee to decide on the case before passing it on to the church. But neither body, however, will use the term miracle officially. The doctors announce that the cure is medically inexplicable, whilst the church announce that the cure has been a gift or a sign from God. Dennis Daly is one of the English-speaking doctors who examined Jean-Pierre's case. While some emphasise the moment of cure as crucial, the controversy is usually centred on what was actually wrong with the person in the first place.

Dennis Daly: "The argument is always about diagnosis because without a diagnosis nothing is explained or explicable. So someone has a bone tumour and they have a biopsy. The biopsy is examined and a diagnosis is made. Ten years later, someone is going to say, well, was that diagnosis correct?"

Raj Persaud: "In other words, was it a malignant tumour?"

Dennis Daly: "Absolutely. I can remember a case - an Italian soldier - with a tumour of his pelvis. That biopsy was sent to half a dozen in bone tumours and all of them disagreed."

Raj Persaud: "But have you ever met a case where there wasn't this difficulty and you were impressed by a medically inexplicable event?"

Dennis Daly: "No."

Raj Persaud: "Never?"

Dennis Daly: "If I had been convinced that Monsieur Bely had MS, I would have certainly voted for this being inexplicable having been bed-ridden for, what nearly two years, he could walk. He was so frightened by it, he was afraid of frightening the other patients. So that's a very remarkable case, in any case. Now did he have MS or not? I don't think he had MS, personally. It was in the days before MRI scanning was available to give us concrete proof. But even if his illness was functional, it's still a very remarkable thing."

Raj Persaud: "By functional, I suspect you're doing this thing that doctors do. Which is, you're really speaking in a euphemism - what you really mean is was it psychological or psychiatric?"

Dennis Daly: "Exactly, yes."

Raj Persaud: "Well, I've met Monsieur Bely in Lourdes and he's certainly convinced that a miracle occurred."

Dennis Daly: "Yes, of course he is."

Raj Persaud: "So you voted against though in his case being a miracle. So what did you think had happened?"

Dennis Daly: "I didn’t know. I voted against it because it was said. "Here is a man who had multiple sclerosis who is now better". I, and other members of the committee, said we're not convinced that he had MS in the first place."

Phil's note: Dr. Daly wasn't doubting Mr. Bely recovered. He disagreed with the diagnosis of MS. Interesting food for thought on just how much debate goes on between scientists before they decalre a cure "medically inexplicable".

That's the only thing I personally ask of skeptics. While you may not recognize a cure as miraculous, at least believe us doctors when we say "dagnabbit, we're stumped. This is scientifically impossible."

In the end, that IS basic substantiation, is it not?

[juliod]

Forgive me, but I really believe that even if I quote from scientific journals, most hard line skeptics will still not believe.

Of course we won't believe. Not easily. We're talking about miracle claims, not claims about what you had for lunch. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And of course most of us don't accept the Catholic authorities as, um, authoratative.

I don't think you will find anything is a real journal that supports miracles. The last example was the Columbia University prayer study in the Journal of reproductive Medicine:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html

DanZ