Healing an amputated leg

[Mithrae]

In July 1637, a 20 year old fellow named Miguel Juan Pellicer was working at his uncle's farm in Castellón, Spain, when a mule-drawn cart ran over and broke his leg. He was taken to a hospital in nearby Valencia for five days, then traveled to Zaragoza in order to receive treatment in the hospital there dedicated to 'Our Lady of the Pillar.' He spent his next two years in Zaragoza as a one-legged beggar, saying that his gangrenous leg had been amputated below the knee when he'd arrived at the hospital.

In March 1640, Pellicer returned to his family home in Calanda, for a few weeks begging around the local villages. On the night of March 29th, Miguel's bed was billeted out to a soldier of the company passing through town, so he slept on a mattress in his parents' room. Passing by as he slept late that evening, Miguel's mother was shocked to see not one but two feet coming out from under his blanket!

• On April 1, Palm Sunday, Don Marco Seguer, parish priest of Mazaleón, a village fifty kilometres away, went to the place of the event, accompanied by the royal notary Miguel Andréu, who set up a certificate to express the testimony, confirmed by oath, of ten persons.
  
  On April 25 Pellicer and his parents went on a pilgrimage to Zaragoza to give thanks to Our Lady of the Pillar, and here too the young man was seen by a great number of people who had known him before with only one leg. Following a request from the city's authority, a formal inquiry was initiated in order to ascertain the veracity of the event. Legal proceedings, presided by the archbishop of the city began on June 5 and took about a year. All hearings were public and no voice of dissent was recorded. Twenty-four witnesses spoke out, selected as the most trustworthy from among the great number of people that knew Pellicer, both from Calanda and from Zaragoza.
  
  On April 27 of 1641 the archbishop of Zaragoza pronounced a judgment, thereby officially declaring the authenticity of the miracle. At the end of the year Pellicer was also invited to the royal court at Madrid. . . .
  ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

None of this information above is disputed by any of the sceptical sources I've checked (beyond the usual knee-jerk 'he didn't exist' assumptions from random forum-folk). Documentary evidence confirms that Miguel Pellicer did exist; he had two legs, then a cart accident; he was widely known as a one-legged beggar for over two years; then he had two legs, the alleged 'miracle' was carefully investigated, and the documentary evidence from those investigations remains available today.

The only part that is seriously disputed is whether the leg was actually amputated in the Zaragoza hospital, because of course that would definitely mean a miracle had occurred.



Investigation and alternative theory

The 'miracle' view of these events was most widely promoted in a book by journalist Vittorio Messori's 2000 book Il Miracolo. The most-cited alternative view of the events - including on Wikipedia - is the one advanced by Brian Dunning of Skeptoid in 2011. Dunning criticizes the official account based on the view that if Pellicer's leg had been gangrenous (the reason for its amputation in the first place), he couldn't possibly have survived a 50-day journey to Zaragoza. Instead, he speculates that rather than going immediately to Zaragoza, Pellicer initially spent some time in Valencia with his broken leg, unable to work and therefore begging for a living. Deciding that he enjoyed the life of a homeless beggar but knowing a broken leg wasn't a permanent excuse, Pellicer traveled to Zaragoza because he was unknown there, and faked an amputated leg by binding it up against his thigh. The gimmick was only discovered when, back home, he had to share a room with his parents.

This view has several problems: For starters there are types of gangrene which could have festered for weeks or even months, consistent with the story. Then, the idea that someone would prefer the life of a homeless beggar to that of a farmer with a roof over his head is an extremely dubious 'motive' to begin with, even before considering the added discomfort of keeping a leg bound up to the thigh. The discovery of the 'regrown' leg poses yet another problem for the theory, because its condition was consistent with a leg replaced using modern techniques - "cold and hard with contracted toes and blue in colour" and "initially a few centimetres shorter due to the loss of bone tissue" according to the Wikipedia article - but not with a leg that was only bound up during the days Pellicer ventured out in the public. (That description may or may not even be consistent with atrophy from constant binding; but if he unbound it at nights, it almost certainly doesn't fit.)

However the most critical problem for the theory is Dunning's false assertions about the available evidence:
"Note that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated — or that he was even treated at all — at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word. He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial."

This is entirely false; in fact the record of testimonies from all three doctors is readily available, along with a hospital Presbyter who'd seen the detached leg.

Thanks to the efforts of 'TheBigManOh' in a 2013 thread on atheistforums.org, I've learned how to find the minutes of the original investigation. According to the Wikipedia article:
"The minutes of the proceedings at Zaragoza. The original document, having been kept in the archives of Zaragoza chapter house, was handed over to a Benedictine monk, Father Lambert, in about 1930, who then took it to France. Unfortunately Lambert was killed in World War II and it is unknown what has become of the manuscript since. However, before it disappeared four printed editions had been published, the first of which in 1829. Two notaries certified that these corresponded exactly with original text."

A scanned version of this 1829 copy is available here. That scanned version has then been passed through some optical character recognition software to produce a text-only version, which can then be passed through Google Translate's heroic attempt to understand it as modern Spanish. Obviously, the results of this process are not ideal, but surprisingly coherent nonetheless.

Pages 43-44

Licentiate Juan de Estanga, Professor of Surgery at the University of the City of Zaragoza, and domiciled there, Surgeon of the General Hospital of her, family member of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of Aragon, aged fifty-one years and a half, and he has forty of good memory, testi-. tigo in the present case cited, produced, presented, sworn and by the oath loaned by him. . . . the depositor tried his cure, and although he They applied many, and different remedies, did not take advantage, because the leg is very phlegmatic Da and damaged;
with which the depositor decided to cut him off, because if it did not seem to die the said Juan Pellicero, and this said to be true per juramentum. The eleventh article of said cedula, being interrogated, replied, and said: That there will be two and a half years, more or less, as he has said, having done the above deliberation the depositor, through his speakers and nurses They cut off a leg to said Juan Pelli- zero four fingers below the knee, which he believes, and he is certainly the same one that has been taught to that depositor, and this he said to be true per juramen- tum. = To the tenth third article, being read he answered, and said: That the depositor continued the cure of this leg for a few months, until he was in state that the clothes could be given to him as is customary to the others , and this said to be true per juramentum. To the fourteenth article of said cedula, when he was read he answered, and said: Many days later, on several occasions, Juan Pellicero said the said Hospital at the time of the cure, and the wound was unwound, and He told the depositor that he was careful to enter the Chapel of the Virgin of the Pillar at the time that the lamps were down, and that he smeared his wound with the oil of said lamps, and that the depositor would scold him because he was doing it. , because the oil was not good for what he wanted, saving the faith of what the Virgin could do, and this said to be true er juramentum. = To the fifteenth article of said cedula, if he was read, he replied, and said: What the deponent knows, that after cutting said leg he walked with a wooden leg helping himself with a crutch; The depositor knows for having seen him several times per jurymenum.

Pages 47-48

Licentiate Pascual del Cacho, Presbyter Vee-
of the Holy Hospital of Our Lady of Grace of the Present City, of forty-four years of age, more or less, and has thirty of good memory, witness in the present Cause quoted, produced, presented and jury, and by the oath loaned by him, questioned about what is contained in the eleventh article of said cedula, if he was read he answered, and said: That the depositor what can be said of the article is, that there will be two years and seven months, more or less, this depository going through the Stables of said Holy Hospital, taking care of the sustenance of the sick, as this was his job, he saw a young man in a bed in the Cuadra de Cirujía, they had cut off a leg, as he heard him say to Licentiate Juan de Estanga and to other Mencebos who were with him, who had cut him off to that sick, and the depositor saw on the floor the said cut leg, and the sick man. He tried to work with some examples, which he saw was very He then heard the depositor say that said leg was buried, and with this he says, that the said Mozo, to whom as said, they cut the said leg, and the one that has been shown to him, it seems to the depositor is a person himself, and not diverse, because before and after cutting said leg, he has treated him little, and this said to be true per juramentum.

Page 48-49

Juan Lorenzo Garcia, Mancebo Platicante de Cyrjjano, a native of Torralva de los Frailes, and has lived in the present city of Zaragoza for ten years here, aged twenty-two years, more or less, and has the ten of good memory, witness in the present Cause cited, produced, presented, ju-
by the oath taken by him, questioned on what is contained in article ten of said cedula,. being told read, he said: That the depositor, who can say of the article, is, that he has been in the Holy Hospital for four years, and that at the occasion that the article says, the depositor was in the Stable of Surgery. He saw that a patient had been taken from the Cuadra de Alenturas, who seems to him to be the one who has been shown him, whom he does not know by name, only did he see him with a wounded leg, and that in said Cua- Mr. Juan de Estanga sought, in the article named, to apply him, the necessary remedies to cure him, and that seeing they did not take advantage of said remedies. God for putting that leg worse than it was, and saw the depositor, that the saying "Juan de Estanga, and Miguel, Beltran, Surgeons, neighbors of Zaragoza, came together and resolved to cut the leg, and es- To said article be true per juramentum. - To the article eleven, being read read answered, and said: That done the above deliberation, there will be the time that says the article, little more or less, said Juan de Es-o Licenciado Thong, through his Mencebos, the said leg, and the dean saw her cut, and it helped to raise the Cauterios, M, that, the same that has been shown to him and iguel Juan Pellicero, in the article named, is oneself , and not diverse, and this said to be true per jura- mentum. - To the twelfth article he answered, and said: That the depositor is the one who took that leg after being cut off and took it with another companion of his, and having been with her in the Chapel, they took her to bury the Sauto Cimenterio. Hospital, as in fact they buried her, making a hole like a handful of wave, and this said to be true per juramentum. - To the twenty-nine article, being read read him, and said: What refers to what he said because he does not know it before cutting off that leg, and then he has communicated little, and this he said to be true per juramen-a 7

Pages 51-52

Diego Millaruelo, Master in Surgery, domiciled in Zaragoza, aged twenty-nine years old, more or less, has the nineteen nine in good memory, witness in the present case cited, produced, presented, and sworn , by the oath loaned by him, questioned about what is contained in the tenth article of said cedula, if he read it answered, he said: That the depositor knows well the said Miguel uan Pellicero, for what he will say below, and with this he says: It will be two years, more or less, that the depositor going to the Hospital with the Licentiate Juan de Estanga, who was with whom he was talking, to visit the patients of the Cuadra de Cirugía, for whose account the cure of the patients who are in it, he saw in a bed the said Miguel Juan Pellicero with a gangrenous leg, that said Licenciado Juan de Estanga applied the various medications, and seeing they did not take advantage of 2, he saw this depositor , that said Licentiate Juan of this resolved short r said happiness, because he could not find another remedy for the said Juan Pellicero to live; the depositor knows, because, as it is said, he spoke with the said Licentiate Juan de Estanga, and he found himself in that deliberation, and this said true per juramentum.-To article eleven he was read, he answered, and said : Having made the above deliberation, they cut the leg, know it because it was present to cut it, and helped the draft, and saw it cut, and this said to be true per juramen- tum.-To article twelve of said cedula. He answered, and said: That he knows, and saw the depositor, that one of the Placists in said Stable took that leg, and the
2 took to bury, and heard say they buried her in the C-menterio; and this said to be true per juramentum.- To article thirteen of said cedula, being read, he answered, and said: That the depositor knows well, and saw, after said leg was cut, said Lic. uan de Estanga continued his cure of the residue of said leg, until it healed, and this said to be true perjuramentum.

Perhaps it says something that the most widely-cited 'rebuttal' of the miracle claim was one which took 10 years to surface and then turns out to be based on false information about the available evidence!



Final references and concluding thoughts

A few of the other sources I checked:
2015 sceptical thread on Reddit - there are some good critical questions about the nature of the alleged miracle here, especially by 'TacoFugitive' and 'TooManyInLitter.' The latter makes the claim (seen also in a comment on the atheistforums.org thread) that Dr. Estanga was "not allowed to examine the stump" of Pellicer's leg during his later examinations, but I cannot find any source for that claim - certainly it isn't indicated in his testimony above! Quite the opposite; both he and Millaruelo said that he (Estanga) treated the leg for a few months afterwards, and on Pellicer's later visits Estanga saw it "unwound." However aside from that there doesn't seem to be anything in this thread contradicting the details above, merely questioning the nature of the 'miracle' itself, which hardly invalidates it.

2013 thread on WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com forums - the discussion here is frankly disappointing, but provided for the sake of completeness.

2006 circular letter from a French abbey - A pro-miracle source which I looked at beacuse it's cited on Wikipedia and a couple of these other threads. Some details are included which I can't verify elsewhere. For example the claim that "On March 29, 1640 [the night of the miracle], the region celebrated the 1600th anniversary of the Virgin Mary's «coming in the mortal flesh» to the banks of the Ebro, according to the belief of the people of the area." 1640 was indeed the 1600th anniversary year of an alleged apparition of Mary to James the Greater, but the common celebration of that event is October 12th (while another source suggests the apparition occurred on January 2nd).

2012 article by the Times of Malta - a pro-miracle source referenced in the Reddit thread above. I found it interesting partly because I've previously posted a thread about the alleged miracles at Lourdes, and this article quotes "decidedly anti-Catholic" film-maker Luis Bunuel as declaring that "Compared to Calanda, Lourdes is a mediocre place."


My own thoughts are that, yes, the circumstances and nature of the alleged miracle are strange, but the evidence is compelling. Besides the four quoted above there were also numerous testimonies from folk who'd known the one-legged beggar over those two and a half years and - allegedly - no dissenting voices which contradicted the reports.

If I had to concoct my own alternative theory - speculation would be a more accurate term - I suppose it would have to be more or less the one advocated by Dunning, with a conspiracy theory on top to explain the doctors' testimony:
> Did 'the authorities' encourage Pellicer to fake the whole thing right from the very beginning with his arrival in Zaragoza? This is obviously pretty far-fetched to begin with.
> Did they discover his ruse in early 1940, but then plan the 'miracle' and its 'discovery' with him? Still somewhat implausible in conspiracy theory terms, with added problems of Pellicer initially choosing the life of a beggar (not to mention obtaining his permit to beg at the shrine, as if the licensing authorities wouldn't ask to examine the leg!).
> Or did 'the authorities' jump on the bandwagon after the 'miracle' had become popularized in Calanda? That's considerably more plausible as a conspiracy theory, but retains the latter two problems above, and adds the question of how Pellicer could be so clumsily discovered.

This was 17th century Spain, in the midst of the Franco-Spanish war and a time of growing discontent around the Spanish Empire (which later in 1640 would lead to an uprising in nearby Catalonia). Dr. Estanga himself was a "family member of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of Aragon" and many modern minds are naturally inclined towards distrust of that organization even moreso than kings and churches generally! Conspiracy theories are always problematic - they're invoked to explain away the evidence, rather than follow its conclusions - but obviously sometimes conspiracies do occur.

So my question is not whether this is indisputable proof of a restored limb - it's obviously not - but how likely would you consider the miracle to be? Or rather than expressing opinions about the likelihood of a miracle, which would be an exercise in futility and circularity, perhaps the opposite question is more appropriate for an objective consideration. In order to suppose that the four testimonies quoted above are all incorrect, it obviously would have to be some kind of conspiracy to deliberately and dishonestly promote a false miracle. For my part I would guess - and I imagine it will only ever be a guess, for all of us - maybe a 7 in 10 likelihood of conspiracy... a mere 30% likelihood of a genuine miracle, give or take... that the conspiracy-falsehood of the testimonies are twice as probable as their truth.

The 'miracle' is obviously far from certain, but one thing is for sure: We will still keep seeing folk insisting that there is 'no evidence' for miracles and raising amputations as if they were some kind of irrefutable trump card


How likely do you consider that this evidence is all the result of some conspiracy? And why?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Mithrae]

I'm going to have to go with Mithrae on this one. DI, your response in post 3 didn't actually touch on the evidence provided for this claim, which at a first casual glance seems to be pretty strong.

I'll give you my honest answer here. I've simply seen too many religious fanatic who are more than willing to give their support to outrageous claim if they support their religion.

Keep in mind, we can't trust that just because these people are supposedly "professionals" that this means that they can't also be extremely self-deluded concerning their religious beliefs.

I've seen "Creationists" who supposedly have Ph.D. telling all manner of falsehoods about the theory of evolution whilst supporting the most outrageous and demonstrably false claims made by creationism.

So just because a person is a doctor, or has some high degree of education or a respected position in society doesn't mean that they have a clue what they are talking about or are willing to be unbiased in an honest way.

In short, religious people have been proven to be unreliable when it comes to making claims that ultimately support their religious beliefs.

So why should I take these 400-year-old hearsay stories to be dependable?

We also know that religious zealots have even purposefully fabricated artifacts for the purpose of trying to create evidence for their religions. So humans have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, especially when it comes to the Abrahamic Religions.

So which is more likely? That religious zealots are untrustworthy <--- A known fact.

OR

That some God magically replaced an amputated limb on some farmer, whilst simultaneous allowing countless millions of other people to suffer permanent damages from their accidents, etc.

And let's not forget that this is the same God that allows babies to be born with grotesque defects:







[youtube][/youtube]

This is a God that is worried about an amputated leg?

[benchwarmer]

Benchwarmer!!! I hope this finds you well!

Other than the 'holiday weight' from too many cookies and chocolates I'm doing great thanks! I hope you are also well.

So, what if God healed all the sick children? What if there were no rape victims, or mass shootings? What if natural disasters never happened or infants were born perfectly? How would that shape your belief in God?

Well it would certainly be a start to having a belief in something that actually seemed to be real. If the world seemed to be humming along with everything under control (i.e. no disease, disasters, and crimes stopped) it would certainly lend weight to the fact an intervening God (or something) was keeping things running smoothly. Though if we didn't see any of these things at all, we might not think about how there are no 'bad things' and who might be keeping them at bay.

Perhaps more to your question and the OP, if I saw Christians (and only Christians) walking into hospitals and clearing them out by healing everyone, then I would be hard pressed not to be convinced they were right about their god and the loving nature of this god - though the need for intermediary 'prayer healings' would still be a bit of a conundrum. i.e. why doesn't this god simply heal everyone right away. Why the song and dance with prayers, laying on of hands, and other rituals?

Basically, if a Christian opened up their Bible and showed me the passage about believers of Jesus having the ability to heal people, then proceeded to heal someone right in front of me (something obvious that leaves no doubt) and they did this multiple times, then I would likely believe. Especially if all Christians gained this 'power' upon believing.

Yet what do we really see? The odd story that can't be substantiated. Either 'real Christians' are rare or their god is not that interested in healing too many people.

[Mithrae]

Benchwarmer!!! I hope this finds you well!

So, what if God healed all the sick children? What if there were no rape victims, or mass shootings? What if natural disasters never happened or infants were born perfectly? How would that shape your belief in God?

Hi Peds nurse. As I said to DI, this thread isn't intended for discussion of the theological problem of evil.

And nor will any thread I start for that matter, because it's an entirely irreconcilable issue. Traditional Christians' answers will almost inevitably boil down to three points:
> All suffering is the fault of humans rather than God to begin with
> God does prevent far more suffering than he allows (even when we can't see the evidence of tragedies which didn't occur)
> The suffering God does allow is precisely the right amount, the minimum necessary to a) help us understand the nature and consequences of evil, b) promote spiritual growth and trust in God and c) help us appreciate and be thankful for the good things in this life and the next.

These are all articles of faith, unprovable but also unfalsifiable. Likewise the contrary view, that there is 'too much' suffering is unprovable and unfalsifiable, a matter of subjective opinion (regardless of how strongly held in the face of particular tragedies). So neither view can ever persuade the other, and beyond the basic analysis it's quite pointless to discuss.

Which means that DI's argument against divine intervention based on opinions of divine morality - which was illogical to begin with - also depends on an unprovable premise. It's simply not worth further discussion in this thread.

[Mithrae]

A story that took place 400 years ago? How about a modern day one? One that can be more easily verified or refuted?

I provided a modern one in post #2, alleged by Smith Wigglesworth, but it obviously is not more easily verified or refuted I encountered and could provide a couple of other modern examples in the course of my investigation too, but again, merely being more modern does not equate with being easy to verify or refute. In all likelihood the last thing a person with a newly-restored limb would want is to become the center of a public investigation and media frenzy spreading pictures of their amputation around the world like some kind of freakshow.

But even if that did occur, any modern example would be just as susceptible as this older example to claims that records of an amputation were falsified. You know that there'd be plenty of sceptics making that claim, and most likely it would only take a few doctors to create a plausible fraud. But a modern example would also face the additional hurdle that there would certainly be claims that the new leg was surgically reattached rather than miraculously. So in what way would a modern example be more persuasive?

Amputated limbs should be getting healed on a regular basis if there really is a god.

What empirical or logical basis do you have for reaching that conclusion? As I've pointed out, there certainly are reports of it happening.

This is similar to trying to prove a bible story. It just happened too long ago. How can anyone really prove it happened the way the tales say?

As I said, this clearly isn't conclusive proof. There is a fairly clear and plausible alternative explanation; that the local and church authorities conspired to promote a fraudulent miracle, pressured those hospital workers to give false testimony under oath and so on.

What I asked and you haven't answered how probable you'd imagine such a scenario to be, on a scale of 1 to 10 say.




Edit:

Yet what do we really see? The odd story that can't be substantiated. Either 'real Christians' are rare or their god is not that interested in healing too many people.

Hi Benchwarmer. Please see my comments to Peds Nurse regarding suffering in general. And as I said, this Calanda example clearly isn't conclusive proof. There is a fairly clear and plausible alternative explanation; that the local and church authorities conspired to promote a fraudulent miracle, pressured those hospital workers to give false testimony under oath and so on.

What I asked and you haven't answered how probable you'd imagine such a scenario to be, on a scale of 1 to 10 say. Please justify your reasoning.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 4 by Mithrae]


".. do you suppose it to be 100% certain that the testimony of the doctors and others was elicited by some kind of conspiratorial pressure to promote a false 'miracle'?"

I personally do not have problem believing that it is a miracle.

Jesus performed many miracles and if He did it before He can also do it now.

Why not more important miracles as someone suggested?
We do not know the workings of the Influx, of the spiritual into the natural.
If Science was not so biased against 'God' they could do a lot of research
that would beneffit mankind.

Hi Monta. You also have not answered the topic of the thread. Are you claiming that there is a ~0 in 10 chance that the church/authorities/doctors conspired to promote a false miracle? That it's impossible or not even worth consideration? Having 'no problem believing' something doesn't seem to be the same as considering it certain.

This is why I create threads like these and ask for more specific estimates of plausibility. Otherwise believers will just accept and critics will just reject and no-one ever really bothers to consider the substantial uncertainties of whatever opinions they're espousing.

Reality is not black and white; knowledge is not binary. If I had a god his name would be Uncertainty Assuming that His Noodliness didn't mind of course.



Edit: Also many 'supernatural' claims have been and are investigated by scientists; there'd likely be a Nobel Prize down the road for any scientist who could actually prove something like that to the satisfaction of their peers. However methodological naturalism is essential for the scientific process - it can't get anywhere if random ad hoc goddidit claims are admitted as valid 'explanations.'

[Divine Insight]

So, what if God healed all the sick children? What if there were no rape victims, or mass shootings? What if natural disasters never happened or infants were born perfectly? How would that shape your belief in God?

Hi Peds Nurse,

I wouldn't even need as much as you have proposed. If we simply lived in a world where animals didn't naturally prey on each other in horrific ways. If there were no serious natural disasters, and only common storms took lives on occasions because humans weren't prepared well enough. And if there were no birth defects at all. And there was no such thing as disease.

AND, the only violence we saw was being caused by the actions of humans, then I would have a very good reason to believe that humans are the ones to blame for "evil" actions. This would indeed give a religion like Christianity quite a bit of support to be sure. No doubt about that.

However, as you well know, this is a hypothetical question that doesn't apply the world in which we actually live. Therefore it's a question that certainly can't be used to support Christianity.

Take humans off the planet and we're still left with animals eat each other. We're still left with animals being born with birth defects. We're still left with horrible diseases preying on animals. We're still left with natural disasters occurring and wiping out animals via drownings, starvation due to droughts, being burned alive due to forest fires, or volcanoes etc.

In short, humans cannot be blamed for the "evils" that occur on earth.

Yet this is what Christianity tries to do. It tries to pin evil onto humans.

~~~~~

Just to take this to an extreme. If we saw no sign of any evil at all on earth and everything was indeed perfect, or very close to it, then yes, believing in a God in general would be far easier to be sure.

I mean, as things are now, it's even difficult for me to believe in non-Christian Gods.

For example, Buddhism has quite many excuses for why their God would allow horrible things to occur without even having any need to try to pin the blame on humans. None the less, even a religion that doesn't try to pin evil onto humans still isn't very compelling to me.

Why does any God allow deformed babies to be born? What would be the point of that?

Pure secular materialism that views reality as an accident answers those questions. If reality is an accident then it should come as no surprise that it's far from perfect.

At least secular materialism makes some sense relative to what we actually see going on around us. An accident doesn't need to have a reason for why it isn't perfect. So there's nothing left unexplained in this worldview. Nothing to apologize for.

One we accept pure secular materialism we're done.

You could argue that we still would not have explained how the universe came to be in the first place. But you would then need to also acknowledge that theology doesn't do any better in that regard because they have no explanation for how their God came to be in the first place.

So theology certainly has no leg up on secular materialism to be sure.

If anything it's precisely the other way around.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 4 by Mithrae]


".. do you suppose it to be 100% certain that the testimony of the doctors and others was elicited by some kind of conspiratorial pressure to promote a false 'miracle'?"

I personally do not have problem believing that it is a miracle.

Hi Monta. You also have not answered the topic of the thread. Are you claiming that there is a ~0 in 10 chance that the church/authorities/doctors conspired to promote a false miracle? That it's impossible or not even worth consideration? Having 'no problem believing' something doesn't seem to be the same as considering it certain.

Reality is not black and white; knowledge is not binary. If I had a god his name would be Uncertainty Assuming that His Noodliness didn't mind of course.

I feel it'd be ignorant of me to take position.. It is possible either way. We were not witnesses and even if we were, if anyone wanted to lie to us we'd have no way to prove it either way. In the end all we have is our
own inner feeling whether it is so or whether it could be so.

Knowledge is binary as long as we live in two words - the natural (space/time)
and the spiritual (infinite/eternal).

[Mithrae]

Hi Monta. You also have not answered the topic of the thread. Are you claiming that there is a ~0 in 10 chance that the church/authorities/doctors conspired to promote a false miracle? That it's impossible or not even worth consideration? Having 'no problem believing' something doesn't seem to be the same as considering it certain.

Reality is not black and white; knowledge is not binary. If I had a god his name would be Uncertainty Assuming that His Noodliness didn't mind of course.

I feel it'd be ignorant of me to take position.. It is possible either way. We were not witnesses and even if we were, if anyone wanted to lie to us we'd have no way to prove it either way. In the end all we have is our
own inner feeling whether it is so or whether it could be so.

All of that may be true, and I realise that it's kind of a no-win question that I'm asking. But the explicit recognition of uncertainty is something that I think is extremely important and seemingly neglected by many folk on both 'sides' of the religious discussion. So I suppose what I'm getting at is do we just stop at our "inner feeling" about some particular event/proposition, or do we try to recognize and even (vaguely) quantify the uncertainty of that feeling.

I guess another way of asking it would be how surprised would you be if A turned out to be true, or if B turned out to be true etc., given the available evidence?

I would be somewhat surprised if the testimonies of those four hospital workers and the various others about Pellicer's leg were somehow all false - something like a 3 in 10. I suppose this 'how surprised' way of asking it doesn't require that the various possibilities add up to 100% (though in reality they must), so with that slightly different question perhaps my answer would be more like an 8 or maybe even 9 in 10 if I learned that such an miracle had actually happened - even given the evidence available. But as noted in the OP, thinking about the miracle side of the issue is likely to be a less objective/more circular approach than looking at the evidence/conspiracy side, at least for those of us otherwise disinclined to believe in miracles.



I was hoping to hear back from Rikuoamero before bumping this thread, but as it turns out it's good (or at least amusing) that I waited before responding anyway: While looking for an entirely different document last night I happened to stumble across one from way back in 2002 which I'd evidently transferred between several computers; from back when I was eighteen and still a Christian. I was quite surprised and gratified to discover that the question of uncertainties vexed me even back then, even if my notions about faith as an intellectual gap-filler were quite rudimentary.

I believe that if faith does not mean absolute certainty, then there must be a point where faith ceases to be commendable, and becomes foolishness. What I mean is this. Suppose there is a 99.999% chance that Christianity is true. Having faith for the other 0.001% is simply common sense. If there was a 98% chance that Christianity was true, the same would apply. But what if there was an 85% chance? Would it be best to have faith, or to seek more evidence to support it? What of a 55% chance? Should we have faith then, or seek to find evidence to prove it more likely? If we then found evidence against Christianity, making it a 52% chance, should we stop looking and have faith, or keep looking? Supposing there was a 48% chance? Should we have faith? You must surely admit that if there were only a 35% chance that Christianity was true, it would be foolish to have faith enough to ignore all the evidence against it. . . .
Of course, there are several problems with the analogy. One is that we can rarely calculate the probability of the truth-hood of a religion in such a manner. Clearly, the answer here is that we must simply do our best and use common sense.

[Kenisaw]

Benchwarmer!!! I hope this finds you well!

So, what if God healed all the sick children? What if there were no rape victims, or mass shootings? What if natural disasters never happened or infants were born perfectly? How would that shape your belief in God?

If I can ask you a counter question Peds, how do you reconcile your believe in a god that, literally, IS love, with rape victims and mass shootings and so forth?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

It is unfortunate that Il Miracolo hasn't been translated into English, I would very much like to read it, and I have no ability to read Spanish. So be it.

Permit to jump around a bit in the OP as I formulate my response.

This view has several problems: For starters there are types of gangrene which could have festered for weeks or even months, consistent with the story

In order to be as accurate as possible, let's note that gangrene happens when tissue starts to die. The tissue death occurs because oxygen and nutrients (oxygen being the most important obviously) are not getting to the affected area in sufficient quantity. The lack of removal of waste products can also be a contributing factor. So suffice it to say that gangrene is basically death of tissue arising from issues with the circulatory system.

It is certainly true that some forms of gangrene can take weeks or even months. Generally speaking this type of gangrene is brought on by coagulative necrosis, typically caused by infarction (tissue death due to inadequate blood supply) or ischemia (restriction in blood supply to tissues, causing a shortage of oxygen). Complications from diabetes is a well known example of this type of necrosis, and diseases are the typical underlying cause of this type of gangrene.

In Pellicer's story, disease was not the issue. He suffered a severe trauma (leg run over by a cart, broken tibia). Coagulative necrosis (the slow gangrene if you will) generally doesn't occur in trauma cases. Wet gangrene (the fast one in you will) is the likely type of gangrene to occur in such a situation. A blocked or crushed artery would cause blood to stagnate, causing rapid bacterial growth, toxicity, and septic problems.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that a severe trauma to Pellicer's leg could have merely restricted the blood flow (if the veins had been pinched for example), as opposed to crushing or severely damaging the artery and other blood vessels. Or perhaps a clot had developed as a result of the injuries and caused a blockage, and it just so happened to coincide with his arrival in Zaragoza after 5 days in the Calanda hospital followed by an arduous 50 day journey to Zaragoza on a broken leg. But I think we can all agree that such a thing is highly unlikely, given what we know about the development of gangrene due to serious trauma.

So I would conclude that Brian Dunning's objection to Pellicer's leg having gangrene 55 days after the injury first occurred but not bad enough to kill him is quite rational indeed.

Then, the idea that someone would prefer the life of a homeless beggar to that of a farmer with a roof over his head is an extremely dubious 'motive' to begin with

I don't see any documentation to suggest that he never had a roof over his head. He had the blessing to become a beggar from the Basilica in Zaragoza and went to church there everyday. Perhaps he stayed there. Perhaps he made enough to get a small dump somewhere in town. You ever work at a farm Mith? I have, and it's hard work, even from today's modern standards. Let's not forget that Pellicer was in the big city (Zaragoza maybe 100,000 verses Calanda at 1200 tops) away from the parents, maybe he didn't want to go home right away. I don't see being a beggar as a real objection, given we have no idea what Pellicer's motivations were back in the day.

This was 17th century Spain, in the midst of the Franco-Spanish war and a time of growing discontent around the Spanish Empire (which later in 1640 would lead to an uprising in nearby Catalonia. Dr. Estanga himself was a "family member of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of Aragon" and many modern minds are naturally inclined towards distrust of that organization even moreso than kings and churches generally!

That's not even the most important part of history from that period, in my opinion. There was a little thing still going on at the time, known as the Spanish Inquisition. 6 people were burned at the stake in Lograno in 1610 (Lograno is about 100 miles NW of Zaragoza), and hundreds of thousands of people around the country were interrogated over the centuries. The Church was the ultimate authority in Spain. I'm sure people in Calanda were well aware of that power.

I mention this because I find it hard to believe that anyone from a small farming village would dare to disagree with church officials about what happened. If a archbishop is investigating the claim of a miracle, or a doctor known to be in good standing with the Inquisition Office, who in their right mind is going to refute him?

After all, what better way to distract people from their growing unrest then the sudden appearance of a miracle, eh?

None of this information above is disputed by any of the sceptical sources I've checked

I think there is reason to question this documentation. I don't mean I doubt that these documents actually exist. Clearly they do (or did before being destroyed or lost). I'm more interested in what they contain. The first document from the royal notary contains the sworn testimony of ten people. I'm curious how many of the farmers named in that testimony had any clue what was actually written down. It's very likely they were illiterate in that town in 1640 Spain. We have no idea that they actually swore to what is written down (not that they would go around disagreeing with the Church anyway, as we pointed out earlier).

You've provided quotes from the investigation done by the archbishop that also seems dubious to me. I think we can all agree that broken bones were common in 1640 Spain, and for that matter I imagine so was amputation. Someone working at a hospital in Zaragoza would have seen broken legs and amputations on a regular basis. Yet, amazingly, 2.5 years after some nameless farmer with a broken gangrene leg comes into the hospital, people are swearing they remember his face and remember his leg lying on the floor? They remember burying his specific leg? They remember all this years later?

Think back to a date 2.5 years from today. Tell me about the people you met at work, what they did, and what happened to them that day. I find it impossible to do, perhaps someone else will have better luck with it than me...

I think there is plenty of reason to doubt that this story is true. The medical facts about serious trauma and gangrene alone raises a major red flag. Add in the fact that we have no empirical evidence, but only testimony offered as a form of evidence, from illiterate people in a farm village and individuals working at a hospital who had no idea that this broken leg with gangrene that was cut off would somehow matter 2.5 years later, yet seem to remember exactly the day when it happened, makes the whole thing suspicious to me.