Modern-day miracles

2010 January 24

By Nicholas Covington
Article ID: 143

Can miracles occur today?

Let’s look at the evidence by examining three kinds of miracles: One type is “Marian apparitions”. Another is the spontaneous remission of cancer, in which malignant tumors reduce or disappear, and can’t be attributed to any standard medical treatment. The final type is what I call “mundane miracles”, seemingly inexplicable and fortunate events which people attribute to the supernatural.

I wrote this article for two reasons. First, I am genuinely curious about these strange events. They need explanation, and could perhaps tell us something meaningful about reality. Second, the faiths that we Westerners are most familiar with (like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all depend upon the idea that miracles occurred in the past. If there is insufficient evidence that miracles occur today, or if there is evidence against miracle claims, this presents difficulty for those who want to argue that miracles occurred in history.

Imagine the following: you’ve poured yourself a glass of soda, then you set it down and walk out of the room. When you walk back in, there is more soda in your glass than when you left. How do you explain this? Did someone add soda to your glass, or did more soda somehow emerge spontaneously? Since you have experienced the law of conservation every moment of your life without a single exception, it’s extremely unlikely that it’s been broken here. On the other hand, you have probably experienced people playing jokes, or a faulty memory. These second set of alternatives must be deemed far more plausible than the first, unless some extremely strong evidence is discovered which vindicates spontaneous soda generation.

Let’s examine some modern-day miracles.

Marian apparitions

From 1900-2007, Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, allegedly made 386 reported appearances.[1] Out of all these, the Catholic church has deemed only eight as authentic. The rest are undecided or negative. How are these appearances judged? According to one source, the Catholic Church judges a Marian apparition as authentic based on the following criteria[2]:

1) The facts in the case are free of error.

2) The person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere and respectful of Church authority.

3) Errors in doctrine are not attributed to God, Mary or another saint.

4) Theological and spiritual doctrines presented are free of error.

5) Moneymaking is not a motive involved in the events.

6) Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result, with no evidence of collective hysteria.

Religious apparitions, or "sundogs"?These criteria are rather problematic. For one thing, how do we know that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are correct? We don’t, so using doctrinal correctness as a criterion to judge these apparitions is spurious. Other criteria, such as “the facts in the case are free of error”, “the person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere…”, “Moneymaking is not a motive” and “Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result” are really only preliminary questions. The sanity and honesty of the witness must certainly be established before we begin to investigate whether the apparition was real. However, the fact that we have established that the witness is sane and honest does not by itself indicate that the apparition actually occurred. Roughly one in two hundred people are schizoid personalities and are prone to hallucinate, even though they are otherwise sane and normal people.[3]

The Church’s criteria do not allow us to establish that these apparitions are real beyond reasonable doubt. At best, they act as a filter to remove some obviously false Marian apparitions, though even this is questionable. One could always wonder if some extremely well-documented and genuine Marian apparition has been discarded because it collided with Catholic dogma. I certainly hope this isn’t the case; I hope the Church would sooner change its dogma than ignore a powerfully convincing apparition.

I do not have the time or resources to sift through the 358 negative cases. If someone has information on one of these cases that shows it is genuine then I will consider it. But, for the time being, let’s just focus on the eight supposedly authentic cases.

Only five of these apparitions were witnessed by multiple people. I believe it is fair to discard the other three. Psychologists have shown that about 8% of men and 12% of women (who exhibited no signs of mental illness) had at least one hallucination in their lifetime.[4] It is therefore not surprising that, over 107 years, three honest individuals exhibiting no sign of mental illness would hallucinate the Virgin Mary, especially given the fact that millions and millions of Catholics lived during that time period.

What about these five apparitions witnessed by multiple people? Let’s look at two of the most popular cases. First we’ll examine the appearance of the Virgin Mary in Fatima, Portugal. Here’s what one source said [5]:

“Many agreed that a major miracle had occurred. Only the children saw the Virgin appear, however. One of those who witnessed and reported the strange solar phenomena was Avelino de Almeida, a reporter who had ridiculed the so-called miracles at Fatima in previous articles. His photographer did not see it, but shot pictures of the mesmerized crowd looking into the sky. There is no independent verification of the solar phenomenon, and no movement or other phenomenon of the sun was registered by scientists at the time.” [Emphasis mine]

Paranormal researcher Joe Nickell points to three reasons for thinking that nothing supernatural was involved in the Fatima “miracles”[6]:

1) The reports of the “sun miracle” are contradictory. Nickell writes,

“Some claimed that the sun spun pinwheel-like with colored streamers, while others maintained that it danced. One reported, ‘I saw clearly and distinctly a globe of light advancing from east to west, gliding slowly and majestically through the air.’ To some, the sun seemed to be falling toward the spectators. Still others, before the ‘dance of the sun’ occurred, saw white petals shower down and disintegrate before reaching the earth.”

2) The sun is viewable by everyone in the world, and yet no one outside of Fatima reported seeing anything unusual about the sun that day, indicating that the events could be explained better by, as Nickell put it, “mass hysteria and local meteorological phenomena such as a sundog (a parhelion or “mock sun” – see the picture above for an example).

3) Several eyewitnesses said they had been staring into the sun prior to the event. What they saw may have been due to optical effects that result from what’s clinically called “temporary retinal distortion.”

Next we travel to Egypt, where a series of Marian apparitions took place in Zeitoun, between 1968 and 1971. Two researchers described the apparitions like this:

“Witnesses’ descriptions varied between two main types: small bright, short-lived lights nicknamed ‘doves,’ and more enduring, less intense, diffuse patches of glowing light.”[7]

I’m surprised by this. When someone says that they have seen Mary, the mother of Jesus, one would think that they saw something like an actual woman, hovering in mid-air and radiating brilliant light, who left no question as to who she was. But, no, these people saw amorphous lights and interpreted them as being Mary. From this fact alone I’m tempted to dismiss the entire incident, and indeed, to dismiss all similar apparitions of other religious people. For example, the reports of Jesus’ post mortem appearances in the earliest accounts (from the apostle Paul), are sufficiently vague. Here we might suppose that the early Christians simply saw a flash of light or something similar and assumed it was Jesus, just as people saw a flash of light in Zeitoun, Egypt and interpreted that as Mary.

Let’s also mention a possible cause of such appearances. Here’s an explanation from the previously-quoted article:

“Canadian neuropsychologist Michael Persinger of Laurentian University and his American colleague John Derr (1989) analyzed seismic activity in the region from 1958 to 1979, and found an unprecedented peak in earthquakes during 1969. They state that ‘The ‘narrow’ window of significant temporal relationship between luminous phenomena and earthquakes is within the classic time frame of more acceptable antecedents (e.g., microseismic activity) of imminent earthquake activity.’ It appears that the Marian observers were predisposed by religious background and social expectation to interpreting the light displays as related to the Virgin Mary.”[8]

This is curious: what does it mean that there is a significant link between earthquakes and ‘luminous phenomena’? According to Persinger and Derr, seismic activity can actually cause flashes of light. Although the mechanism behind this is not completely understood, there are certainly some good reasons to think that luminous phenomena are caused by seismic activity. Persinger and Derr did another study in which they found that the number of UFO reports in the United States sharply increased in the 1960’s when the U.S. experienced more seismic activity than it had in several decades.[9] Furthermore, areas of the U.S. that experienced the most seismic activity also produced the largest number of UFO reports.

Spontaneous remissions of cancer

A “spontaneous remission” occurs when a cancerous tumor reduces in size or disappears, and the change cannot be attributed to the ordinary effects of medicine. This first intrigued me when I listened to Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University. He discussed it in episode 401 of the Infidel Guy show. Habermas proposed spontaneous remissions as being possible modern day supernatural occurrences – miracles. Habermas also hinted that those who interpret such things as miracles would make them more open to believing that miracles occurred in the past.

The discussion might make me believe in a supernatural aspect of reality, including the existence of gods. Specifically, if there were observed and well-documented miracles. I knew I had to research this. Initially I was open-minded but skeptical: doctors and scientists do not know everything about cancer, and so what appears miraculous or mysterious to them may have some unknown non-miraculous explanation. Humanity simply does not yet know enough to deem these things “miraculous”.

During my research I found that spontaneous remission often coincides with a feverish infection.[10] That is extremely strange if the remission is caused by a supernatural power. Can’t a guardian angel get rid of cancer without causing a fever? Further research indicated that there were natural explanations for these infections. For example, an infection may “reactivate” the immune system which then can remove the tumor.[11] Although explanations such as this are only plausible (and not proven), any plausible natural explanation defeats plausible supernatural explanations.[12]

The supernatural spontaneous remission hypothesis prompts many other questions. For example: why don’t the supernatural powers simply prevent the growth of these cancers in the first place? Why is it that the angels/gods/whatever only cause spontaneous remission of cancer 20 times per year?[13] I hope that, if some must be neglected and not cured, it’s because the supernaturals are working on other important issues, like world hunger.

Mundane miracles

When I was young, I attended church. One Sunday, a traveling evangelist came and told us a story about something that happened to him in Africa: his car was low on gas, and didn’t have enough to get to where he needed to go. But, he started the car anyway, and decided to drive as far as he could. Surprisingly, he managed to finish his trip, and when he looked at his gas gauge it showed the same amount of gas as before – it hadn’t changed. This evangelist believed that this was a miracle.

I believe this man was telling the truth (I knew him fairly well and saw that he wasn’t talking about these things for personal gain), but I disagree with his interpretation of the event. The car I own now has a terribly inaccurate gas gauge: when I come home at night, it might say I have a quarter-tank left. When I start the car again the next morning, it will say I have over a half-tank of gas. The evangelist’s gauge may have been malfunctioning around the time that this incident occurred. In fact, dirt and corrosion can disturb wiring connections and cause a gas gauge to read incorrectly.[14]  I happen to know that the areas of Africa that this evangelist visited often had unpaved dirt roads. You do the math on that one.

If this is indeed a miracle, we must also ask: why is it that God kept this man’s car from running out of gas in Africa, but failed to keep millions of poor men, women, and children on that very same continent from starving to death? It just doesn’t add up.

This is an example of the rather mundane miracles that people claim to experience. When we add to this the frequency of exaggeration, outright lying, illusion (like being fooled into thinking something occurred when it only looks like it occurred, like watching a magician’s trick and seeing the impossible), trickery (did someone trick the person into believing a miracle happened?), hallucination, and bad reasoning, we see that these kinds of reports are not good evidence that a miracle has occurred.

Conclusion

Whenever you hear a miracle claim, don’t believe it unless you can get solid answers to questions like:

Who witnessed the event?

What do we know about the witnesses?

How many people witnessed the event?

Might they have ulterior motives for reporting what they did?

In their own words, what exactly did they see, and does that make sense?

Are there any plausible natural explanations for what they saw?

Always explore and question accounts of “miracles”. Nothing can be taken for granted in these investigations, because people often interpret highly unusual (but inconclusive) evidence as pointing to the supernatural, when it is clear that they have no business in doing so.

References

1) JC Tierney, “Marian Apparitions of the Twentieth Century” (2009)

2) The Marian Library, “How does the bishop of a diocese go about verifying an apparition, and what does it mean if ecclesial approval is granted?

3) I discuss this in my article “Jesus’ Resurrection and Mass Hallucinations” (2009)

4) Peter Slade and Richard Bentall, Sensory Deception: a Scientific Analysis of Hallucination (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1988), p. 69.

5) Sacred Destinations, “Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima” (2009)

6) Joe Nickell, “The Real Secrets of Fatima”, Skeptical Inquirer, November / December 2009.

7) Robert E. Bartholomew and Erich Goode, “Mass Delusions and Hysterias: Highlights from the Past MilleniumSkeptical Inquirer May / June 2000.

8 ) Ibid.

9) John S. Derr and Michael A. Persinger, “Luminous Phenomena and Seismic Energy in the Central United States” (1990) Journal of Scientific Exploration 4, pp.55-69.

10) Uwe Hobohm, “Fever and Cancer in Perspective”, Cancer Immunol Immunother (2001) 50: 391-396.

11) Behzad Niakan, “A Mechanism of the Spontaneous Remission and Regression of Cancer” Cancer Biotherapy & Radiopharmaceuticals (1998) 13: 209-210.

12) The reason that I feel justified in stating that any plausible natural explanation is sufficient to defeat the claim that something supernatural has occurred is because a natural explanation only assumes that the natural world exists (which of course is proven), while supernatural explanations assume the existence of an unproven supernatural realm. Natural explanations carry a lot more weight for this reason, and must receive more preference than supernatural explanations of otherwise equal value.

13) Challis, G. B., & Stam, H. J. (1990). The spontaneous regression of cancer: A review of cases from 1900 to 1987. Acta Oncologica, 29, 545-550. Challis, G. B., & Stam, H. J. (1990). The spontaneous regression of cancer: A review of cases from 1900 to 1987. Acta Oncologica, 29, 545-550.

14) Randy Rundle, “Troubleshooting Your Gas Gauge” (1997).

None of the scientific literature which I have cited actually argues that spontaneous remission of cancer is miraculous. These claims are made mostly by nonscientists, such as those mentioned in this article.



Other articles related to this topic:

52 Comments
2010 January 24
Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth[ Carneades] permalink

Nicholas, new friend, thanks for this illuminating article.
Then  answered prayers are post hoc- coincidences. Also, believers have hoc excuses for failed prayers. Ah, they use ad hoc, convoluted arguments to support belief in Him anyway so that the Razor notes that natural causes as you so  state take precedence. The presumption of naturalilsm is that not only natural causes and explanation  efficient and necessary but also primary and suffiicient: Leibniz notwithstanding, they are indeed the sufficient reason.
My atelic argument and argument from pareidolia keel haul teleology, and thus Him.
I ‘m also developing the new argument from autonomy that our level of    consciousness gives us our rights, and the UN Declaration of Rights affirms this ,[ and in regards to my " kinsman' Morgan's Canon, we have varying levels of responsibility to other animals, so that I  plead for others to urge legislators to enact The Great Ape Project, to  give our fellow great apes more protections as New Zealand and Spain now are doing.]. This argument triumphs over the   theists’ argument that either God gave us non-revocable rights or the state gives us revocable ones.
Some find that after, the chimps and bonobos, we are the third chimpanzee. So   much for special creationism! I’m a Bonobo-every sexed-up! Gee, Yeshua would contemn me for my liberal luscious lusts! So  much for sin.
Creation evolution is not much  more credible than creation science . so, creationism = theism in the wide sence.

2010 January 24

Morgan, I’ve read your posts, and I’m curious – are you an atheist, or specifically against Christianity?

2010 January 26

The resurrection of Jesus Christ

Who witnessed the event?  Disciples and Apostles
What do we know about the witnesses? Died for their testimony
How many people witnessed the event? Over 500
Might they have ulterior motives for reporting what they did?  None.
In their own words, what exactly did they see, and does that make sense?  It makes sense
Are there any plausible natural explanations for what they saw? There are no plausible natural explanations for the resurrection.

Thanks for proving the resurrection of Jesus Christ!  I found your questions in very helpful in proving that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God who rose from the dead.

2010 January 26

What do we know about the witnesses? Died for their testimony

What reliable historical evidence is there for that? None.

How many people witnessed the event? Over 500

According to a single passage (which could be a later addition to the text) from one man and one man only: Paul.

In their own words, what exactly did they see, and does that make sense?  It makes sense

We don’t have their words on what they saw. We have the words of Paul and the words of four other anonymous writers probably writing decades after the fact.

Are there any plausible natural explanations for what they saw? There are no plausible natural explanations for the resurrection.

Yes there are. Grief hallucinations, for one. For another thing, people might have seen earthquake lights as they did in Zeitoun and simply interpreted that as Jesus. After all, wasn’t there an earthquake reported around the time of Jesus’ death?

2010 January 26

zdenny, I think it might help if you tell us what specific resurrection incident you’re referring to. The appearance to Mary Magdalene? Or to Paul? Or another?

2010 January 26

I have one question.  I admit that it is not an original one, but it has eluded viable explanation.  So why does God hate amputees?

2010 January 28
nbjayme permalink

There are a lot of information left on Account of the Fatima Miracle.
Firstly the behaviour of the children.  The Church, family, and media discourage the children.  This also include the children being investigated and threatened by the Communist State. ;-)  But they stood firm, something is causing them to behave such way.   They hold their conviction until the appointed day of the Miracle Happened. ;-) And, happened it did!
Some Catholics believed that God actually caused the heavy waters from rain to cause humidity and made the Miracle happened.   Which caused the ground and the clothes to dry.  What we have are only interpretation of people from what they have seen.  ;-)
Therefore the above article only examines the shallow accounts of the event. ;-)
“These criteria are rather problematic. For one thing, how do we know that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are correct?”
It would be problematic from one that does not know the doctrines guiding the Church. ;-)  It’s quite circular actually. ;-)  These doctrines are the Dogma and Faith as taught by the Church. ;-)  In the first place, the Miracle is claimed to be coming from God worshipped by the Catholic Church. ;-)

“Are there any plausible
natural explanations for what they saw?”
This can be subjective.  Being able to explain the phenomenon does not mean to say nobody caused the phenomenon.  That’s why the Church not only investigate the occurrence but also those people involve  in the phenomena.
 
—–
God hate amputees?  Does that deny His existence?  Even if one point all liablities to God.  That does not deny He is God. ;-)  One’s hatred against supposedly personality of God is not proof of non-existence. ;-)
 

2010 January 28
nbjayme permalink

If nothing happened… then it would’ve been the atheists, communists, and almeida who will be having a field day.  There would have been ridicule, all the more, to the children and the Catholic Church.
What happened to Avelino de Almeida, after the event?
“His conversion produced a storm of controversy among Lisbon atheists and anti-clericalists, who attacked him bitterly. “

2010 January 28

I seek not to prove or disprove the existence of God.  That is for he who makes the claim.  Nor do I have any feelings about the personality of God.  I find it curious however, that with regard to miracles, that there are no documented cases of limb regeneration within the faithful.  This is particularly puzzling given the capability of natural limb regeneration in some organisms.  I am forever open minded to the possibility of miracles.  Spontaneous limb regeneration would be more clearly  miraculous  (in terms of irrefutable evidence) than say cancer remission which occurs even in non-believers.   I just find this to be an interesting ponderable.  No ad hominem attacks here.   Perhaps the question of God hating amputees was offensive.  It certainly elicited a response steeped with the straw man fallacy.  It would have been more productive to ask:  “Why wont God heal amputees?” If this question raises your curiosity check out:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

2010 January 28
nbjayme permalink

“Why wont God heal amputees?”
Hi Gerald.  The question itself requires reading the mind of God. ;-)  Whatever, opinion that may provide a person on God’s personality is not a strong proof of non-existence.  There are indeed many well formed babies … yet millions end up in abortion. ;-)  People abuse their body and man is only reaping the bad effects.
If God decide not to… will it make Him any less of a God? ;-)  We call it prayer … because we are requesting … not demanding. ;-)  Most people want God to prove his existence by playing their terms.  God have a better plan to prove Himself but we choose to ignore it. ;-)
See,  people who don’t believe in the existence of God will always find a way not to believe.  Like nickell, he is only concerned on How the effects were made and tries to explain the phenomenon (by guessing game), but Nickell cared less to investigate prior to the event, as well as, other important details.
Man mostly misuse his knowledge, man use science to play god.  Now, our existence is at the fingertips of businessman / leaders in the world and their anger management — or war will erupt. :D  See, misguided men will only want to find out what caused the amputee to grow back the limbs and then find a way to play god.
I agree that people should not be swayed easily by claims.  We need to investigate and find possible explanation, through scientific analysis and background investigation of people involved.  The Church does rigorous investigations and even welcome scientific inquiry to the matter.
From a Biblical perspective, this world is temporal and we are here to prove our character.  A really really big school to learn to acquire and practice Spiritual Virtues.
Amputees that did not give up and lose hope have become an inspiration to millions of people. ;-)  Others allow man to practice the virtue of charity.  It’s not the amputee that is the real problem, it’s the lack of Love and Concern that made usamputee — though our body is complete.
 
 
 

2010 January 29

zdenny @ 2:
I am just curious, if you find the evidence so convincing for the Resurrection of Jesus, why aren’t you a Mormon?[1]  If you look in the front of any copy of the Book of Mormon, you will find two signed affidavits, from a total of eight witnesses, testifying that the divine visitations that Joseph Smith based his religion on really occurred.   There is no record than any of those witnesses ever recanted their testimony.  That sounds to me like it is at least as good of “evidence” as anything in the Bible, and better than most of it.[2]
 
[1] If you are a Mormon, well then, never mind.
[2] I have other reasons for being unconvinced by the Book of Mormon, but if miraculous visitations are all you care about, the Mormons certainly have them.

2010 January 30
Fractelle permalink

Are there ANY reports of Christian supernatural manifestations in non-Christian countries? By non-Christian people? Surely cultural background has a major influence in the interpretation of what has apparently been observed?
 
For example, wouldn’t Hindus be more likely to report manifestations of the supernatural as Krishna or Vishnu or any of their religious pantheon?
 
Finally, why would a supernatural entity choose say a piece of toast in which to make an appearance, rather than doing something useful, like, cleaning up pollution?

2010 January 30
Morticia permalink

Great article.
Fractelle,
I doubt than any Christians would have any logical answer to the questions you asked.
ZDenny,
Even if there was any proof that Jesus existed, there  exists no proof that he was resurrected because there isn’t even proof that he died.
He could’ve been in a coma. These days they didn’t have  equipment to measure brain death. Think of all the people who were burried alive  in the past after they were proclaimed dead. They ‘resurrected’ inside their coffins and the scratch marks we found on the inside of the  lids of coffins are evidence of that.
If Jesus was never dead, he never resurrected.  Proof that he was flat-lined doesn’t exist.
 

2010 January 30
nbjayme permalink

“Are there ANY reports of Christian supernatural manifestations in non-Christian countries? By non-Christian people? Surely cultural background has a major influence in the interpretation of what has apparently been observed?”
The Miracle of Fatima was a Universal appeal.  Skeptics, atheists, and communists, in whatever cultural background, witnessed the event and had made a deep impression on their life. ;-)  Another, one to note is that the country was under an anti-Catholic Communist leaders.
“For example, wouldn’t Hindus be more likely to report manifestations of the supernatural as Krishna or Vishnu or any of their religious pantheon?”
There is validity to your question here.  People relate the things the see or observe around them base on what they have been taught to believe.  But we should learn to distinguish between “subjective / circumstantial” evidence  and “objective” evidence.  In the case of Fatima Miracle, there is enough objective evidence to warrant the claim. ;-)
“Finally, why would a supernatural entity choose say a piece of toast in which to make an appearance, rather than doing something useful, like, cleaning up pollution?”
This question falls into the fallacy of  it-should-be-this-way argument.

2010 January 30
nbjayme permalink

Even if there was any proof that Jesus existed, there  exists no proof that he was resurrected because there isn’t even proof that he died.
If there was proof Jesus lived, then there remains a fact that Jesus will die (in one way or the other).  Therefore, the plausibility of Jesus’ resurrection.  Your question is quite contradictory to say the least.
The Church submits the Shroud of Turin as proof.  But people can be skeptic to the evidence and that is their privilege of exercising free will.  Carbon dating was inaccurate because they took samples from parts where it caught fire.  Extensive analysis, as well as, other evidences found, convinced other scholars that it is authentic.  They converted from non-believers to the Catholic church.
But shroud of Turin is just one — it does not immediately conclude the man is Jesus.  Thus, the supernatural occurence in the Church through Miracles, provide us more proof of Jesus supernatural claims.
St. Padre Pio has also become a subject of miraculous claims.  This claim he (Pio) did not claim upon himself but was provided for by his Lord Jesus Christ. ;-)
 
 

2010 January 31
Morticia permalink

Hi NBJayme.
The Vatican is silent on the Shroud of Turin.  I wonder why.
There is so much controversy about the Shroud of Turin, that arguments using the shroud  ‘as evidence for the existence of Jesus’  may as well be ignored as  they have no weight.
http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html
Perhaps I explained not clear enough. Of course, if a man called Jesus lived around that time, he would’ve died sometime. There is no record of it. Even if there was a record in documents  that THE Jesus died on the cross, they were lacking the technology to proclaim someone brain dead. So any hear-say story about a resurrected Jesus is highly questionable. As I said, he could’ve been in a coma with no detectable heart beat at the moment they thought he was dead. He could not have resurrected if he was not brain dead.
What I was trying to say is that if THE Jesus ever lived, there is no evidence that he died when he was crucified. Duh… he would’ve died at some time just as every other living person eventually does, but that’s beside the point. The argument here is whether or not he resurrected after dieing on the cross. And there is no evidence at all that he died on the cross and resurrected on the third day.
 

2010 January 31
nbjayme permalink

The Church see it prudent to let the expert who studied the Shroud of Turin show the evidence. ;-)  Therefore, the Church is not silent as one may think, it’s just prudent to let those with expertise examine the Shroud extensively.  In fact, there is a book about the Shroud of Turin from experts, some converted to the Church and others continue their skepticism. ;-)
There is so much controversy about the Shroud of Turin, that arguments using the shroud  ‘as evidence for the existence of Jesus’  may as well be ignored as  they have no weight.
Well, I’m glad that the Church did not use the Shroud of Turin as argument for the evidence of Jesus’ existence.  It’s just one of the many evidences, i.e. the existence of the Christian movement with interaction from disciples who witnessed Jesus life, is also one proof.  Therefore, you sum up all evidences and not just focus on one. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Josephus
 
What I was trying to say is that if THE Jesus ever lived, there is no evidence that he died when he was crucified. Duh… he would’ve died at some time just as every other living person eventually does, but that’s beside the point.
If He died (for whatever means) then the plausibility of Resurrection. ;-)
It really depends now on what part of the spectrum one falls.  If one persist on believing Jesus wasn’t crucified, even without proof to warrant such claim, then that’s a faith that needs further evidence too. ;-)
Thus  the need for supernatural intervention to show objective proof that the Church’s Faith is valid.
 

2010 January 31
Fractelle permalink

Nbjayme
 
Fatima has universal appeal does she?
“Fatima” is a very common name to countries of the Middle East and Northern Africa. Irrespective of the type of government, middle eastern religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam are a significant part of the cultural background for all these countries and more.
 
Would love to know how the miracle was due to Fatima specifically. Just how universal was ‘her’ appearance? Did she manifest in Papua, New Guinea, to the Inuits of Northern Alaska, the indigenous folk of Australia? If she did put in an appearance – how did they know it was Fatima. If I was a New Guinea highlander and witnessed a glowing feminine  manifestation, I’d probably conclude it was my great Auntie Alu Sapet or too much betel nut.
 
My argument remains solid, I know there are many events which appear to have no rational explanation – yet. However, to see a light in the sky and conclude that it is a specific representation of a specific religion, is more ‘god of the gaps’ reasoning, ergot; no explanation?  God must’ve done it.
 
As for my “falling into the trap of it should be this way” arguments, please explain why religious miracles are so minor and so lame? Cancer cures but no limbs for amputees, or bleeding Marys but no hope for starving children. Therefore, it is a fair question to ask why a mighty deity would basically play a covert game of fear and ignorance, than overt transparent honesty, such as “Thou shalt accept all life on earth whether they believe in Me or not and thou shalt cancel taxation free-ride and pay like everyone else.” I’d like to see that.
 
Methinks, here, you fall into the trap of the “god works in mysterious ways” argument.
 
By the way, very compassionate of you to tell amputees not to give up hope. Coincidentally when I am caring for my frail mother, I try to leave her feeling better about herself, feeling hopeful – and I didn’t even need god to tell me to do it.

2010 January 31
nbjayme permalink

My argument remains solid, I know there are many events which appear to have no rational explanation – yet. However, to see a light in the sky and conclude that it is a specific representation of a specific religion, is more ‘god of the gaps’ reasoning, ergot; no explanation?  God must’ve done it.
There is no God of the gaps with regards to Fatima Miracle. ;-)  Both believers and skeptics / atheists were there, present. ;-)  Almeida himself was an atheist and notorious reporter who was against the so-called Fatima Message … but later was converted because of the Miracle and other evidences. ;-)


Methinks, here, you fall into the trap of the “god works in mysterious ways” argument.
He is not so mysterious enough.  He let his Will known.  In fact, He did not guarantee the world to be a perfect place to live.  He made once called Eden but Adam and Eve failed. ;-)
You fall into, blame-it-all-on-God argument. ;-)  It’s the lack of Love that we have hunger.  Businessmen want to keep the value of goods more than sending help to people who cannot afford services.
By the way, very compassionate of you to tell amputees not to give up hope. Coincidentally when I am caring for my frail mother, I try to leave her feeling better about herself, feeling hopeful – and I didn’t even need god to tell me to do it.
As said, it will allow others to practice the Virtue of Charity.  Keep doing the good work! ;-)
 

2010 January 31
nbjayme permalink

Would love to know how the miracle was due to Fatima specifically. Just how universal was ‘her’ appearance? Did she manifest in Papua, New Guinea, to the Inuits of Northern Alaska, the indigenous folk of Australia? If she did put in an appearance – how did they know it was Fatima.

Read the Background and History of the Fatima Miracle first.  If God thinks it is in Fatima where He shall perform — then so be it. ;-)
If I was a New Guinea highlander and witnessed a glowing feminine  manifestation, I’d probably conclude it was my great Auntie Alu Sapet or too much betel nut.
Which then explains the logical reason why God will reveal on selected condition becuase there can be little room for mis-interpretation. ;-)
I think you fall into the argument of  Play-my-own-terms-God.
;-)
 

2010 January 31
Fractelle permalink

nbjayme
 
Um, so in order to be selective and not so mysterious, God provided some sort of celestial name-tag for Fatima?
 
Cool.
 
Morticia
 
You are right – no logic here, just a load of temporising. Maybe in addition to amputees, god doesn’t like indigenous folk either – hence the selectivity.
 

2010 January 31
nbjayme permalink

Um, so in order to be selective and not so mysterious, God provided some sort of celestial name-tag for Fatima?
In order to show He exists, He performs Miracles.  The How, When, Where, that is God’s prerogative, not ours.

You are right – no logic here, just a load of temporising. Maybe in addition to amputees, god doesn’t like indigenous folk either – hence the selectivity.


It’s man who abandoned God.  We abuse our body and we are to reap that abuse one day.   Whatever personality you may want to portray on God, it does not amount to proof of non-existent. ;-)   As said, in Biblical perspective, Earth is a big school to learn, acquire, and practice spiritual virtues.  God can inspire the heart to do good — it’s up to the person to respond to that inspiration.  There are people who have been inspired, like you, to take care of the amputees.  Others, He inspire to help the poor.  Though imperfect is the world we live in, man learns to practice Charity — the greatest of all virtues.
 

2010 January 31
Morticia permalink

Hi nbjayme,
I wonder why there is less poverty and far better welfare networks in the most atheist countries  like the Nordic countries such as Sweden, Norway, and countries like Holland and Belgium, than there is in the more Christian (and of course Muslim) countries like the USA.
Holland has the lowest rate of child poverty, the lowest rate of abortions- but at the same time, they have very liberal abortion laws, free contraception, homosexuals have the EXACT same rights as heterosexuals i.e. marriage and child adoption and access to IVF for Lesbian couples, also decriminalised soft drugs, have legal prostitution and euthanasia has been legal for years and years as well.
These countries I mentioned above are the most peaceful, too.
They don’t depend on miracles either- just a sensible social welfare network, developed by live people  (certainly  no miracles by glorified corpses like fatima)  in where all citizens benefit especially the ones who need it most.
 
And I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying about the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that Jesus died on the cross when he was crucified. To spell it out, this is what I’m saying:
1) Jesus could’ve been crucified but there is no proof that he died, and that he was dead when they put him in his tomb.
2) If he left his tomb after he was put in there,  it could’ve meant that he had been just in a coma and got out of it on the third day.
3) He could’ve lived for another number of years after he came out of his tomb, then died from whatever cause.
4) There are no records such as birth certificate, death certificate of Jesus ever found.
Conclusion:
Christianity is just an extension of Paganism, an accumulation of legends from previous religions or cultures.  Christianity borrowed heavily from paganism, too.
It’s laughable to read about all the virgins who were impregnated by some god on the other. Virgin births were so common.  Stories of so-called half-gods performing miracles are also common.
And puhhlease, tell me that you don not actually believe that God created Adam and Eve, that they were in the garden of Eden and that there was a talking snake!
Seriously, nobody in the 21st century should be going around that deluded!
 

2010 February 1
nbjayme permalink

These countries I mentioned above are the most peaceful, too.
Not at all peaceful.  Abortion is murder. ;-)
They don’t depend on miracles either…
God does not demand blind Faith.  If He wants to perform Miracles to guide society of moral laws to follow — then it’s His prerogative. ;-)   Nations do not suffer because of the moral guidelines provided by Jesus Christ but because of not following it. ;-)
And I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying about the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that Jesus died on the cross
There are evidence even from contemporary historians.  ;-)  It’s your doubt of Jesus not dying on the cross which you hold as fact. ;-)  Presumptions and skeptics analysis is not proof — it’s just an alternative view of what it may have been — but does not amount to proof. ;-)
Thus, again, the intervention of God is needed if He did, in fact, exists.  And He proved He exists through the Miracles of  the century. ;-)
 
 

2010 February 1
Fractelle permalink

According to nbjayme:  “And He proved He exists through the Miracles of  the century”
 
Well we have come full circle; apparently the existence of god is proven by the useless,  worthless and more frequently lame ‘miracles’ such as the light of  Fatima.
 
Fortunately for god there are no Academy Awards for miracles, and no evidence required either; just belief, belief that Christianity (which is apparently the one absolutely true religion because nbjayme believes that is so) will one day, bring an end to all suffering even though it has failed miserably for over 2000 years thus far. Of course, women will continue to suffer under Christianity being denied control over their own bodies. But everyone else will live happily ever after – just like in the fairy tales.

2010 February 1
nbjayme permalink

Morticia,
One needs to be updated by science. Science now learns that animals do have their way of communication.

“While it is not known if dolphins have a formal language, they do communicate with a signature whistle to identify themselves.”
so, puhhlease…
:D
If Adam and Eve understands the snake then you better learn the language.  ;-)
 

2010 February 1
nbjayme permalink

Fractelle,
Well we have come full circle; apparently the existence of god is proven by the useless,  worthless and more frequently lame ‘miracles’ such as the light of  Fatima.
There’s no circular reasoning there.  Miracles are supernatural intervention of proving His existence. ;-)  It wasn’t useless, worthless and lame … in fact, many atheists want to debunk it by using shallow research on the subject.
Nickell’s research were lame to start with. ;-)
 

2010 February 1
nbjayme permalink

Of course, women will continue to suffer under Christianity being denied control over their own bodies.
Presumptions against Christianity does not amount to God’s non-existence.  Jesus demand men to respect women.  ;-)
 

2010 February 1
scott permalink

Nbjayme avoids answering questions directly. ;) Nbjayme believes that dolphins sending signature signals to each other is equivalent to a snake speaking a human language to Adam and Eve. ;) I like that. ;) It makes atheists like me feel superior to Christians. ;) Nbjayme probably believes that Adam and Eve also rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday. ;)  Nbjayme completely avoids Morticia’s point that countries which do NOT follow a fundamentalist view of Christianity (like Holland) seem completely free from the supposed wrath of God ;) That’s a bit cowardly, isn’t it? ;)  Nbjayme says things like ‘Jesus demands men respect woman’ without giving any source for it. ;) Nbjayme doesn’t even know his own bible. ;) That makes Jesus sad. ;) 

2010 February 2
nbjayme permalink

Scott,
The fact that there is abortion, as claimed by the poster, already is an indication of wrath of man against man. ;-)
The Miracle of Fatima already proves God’s existence.  ;-)
No emotional rhetoric can change that. ;-)
 

2010 February 2

I think the ;-) at the end of every sentence makes you guys sound smarmy. 

2010 February 2

Ryan,

I figured nbjayme was putting those in there to passive-aggressively incite people, or he/she just naturally overuses it. However, Scott’s usage I’m sure was an intentional parody. Made me laugh, actually.

I’m thinking I’ll turn off the auto-graphic emoticons. Too many ;-) pictures. These conversations end up looking like a flock of birds just flew over my website.

Andy

2010 February 2
Morticia permalink

Andy,
However, Scott’s usage I’m sure was an intentional parody. Made me laugh, actually.
Me too! I thought it was hilarious!
 
nbJayme,
The fact that there is abortion, as claimed by the poster, already is an indication of wrath of man against man. ;-)
What I said was that these countries have liberal abortion laws but at the same time experience the lowest aborion rates in the world.
America has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.
Besides, abortion is not murder. One can’t murder something that is not a person. It is killing.
There are many, many natural abortions, i.e. miscarriages. Even women who would love to have a baby and are trying hard to remain pregnant experience natural abortions or miscarriages.
The only difference between a miscarriage and an abortion  is that one occurs naturally and the other one is induced.
And who, according to you, causes miscarriages? Surely an all powerful god could prevent these.
Besides there is NOTHING in the bible that indicates that abortion is wrong. In fact, somewhere in the bible,  god commands soldiers to cut open pregnant women and destroy ‘their fruit’.
 
 
 
 

2010 February 2
nbjayme permalink

Hello andy.  Sorry for my “overuse” of smileys.  I thank you for the accommodation you are granting me.  It’s not my intention to incite anything but to share insights.
Like men of science, they cannot fully understand things without “willingly exerting an effort”.  Excerting an effort to understand is the first step to be able to gather proof.  Take for example the quasars, dark matter, string theory; scientist who conclude it does not exists, feel no need of exerting the effort to understand, those who believe still continue to gather more proofs and understand the subject.

2010 February 2
nbjayme permalink

Besides, abortion is not murder. One can’t murder something that is not a person. It is killing.
 
Here you push your belief.  It is murder or killing. It’s a living being — it has life.  And, it is human being — check the DNA.

The only difference between a miscarriage and an abortion  is that one occurs naturally and the other one is induced.

 
Abortion is a concious and willing act of terminating life of a living being.  Miscarriage is accident, no willingness to terminate life of another human being.
 
And who, according to you, causes miscarriages? Surely an all powerful god could prevent these.
 
And who are you planning to blame it on?  Pregnant women have the responsibility to take extra care for the child in the womb.  God is all powerful and a prerogative to Decide.


Besides there is NOTHING in the bible that indicates that abortion is wrong.
Actually even before abortion.  God respect and encourage life.
Genesis 38:  8 Juda, therefore add to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.
9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
10 And therefore the Lord slew him, be- cause he did a detestable thing.

In fact, somewhere in the bible,  god commands soldiers to cut open pregnant women and destroy ‘their fruit’.


The wiping out of the tribe may have something to do with the Nephilim who took wives for themselves.  Meaning, the gene pool of humans was disturbed.
 
Genesis 6:  4 Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.
II Kings 8
11 And he stood with him, and was troubled so far as to blush: and the man of God wept.
12 And Hazael said to him: Why doth my lord weep? And he said: Because I know the evil that thou wilt do to the children of Israel. Their strong cities then wilt burn with fire, and their young men thou wilt kill with the sword, and thou wilt dash their children, and rip up their pregnant women.
13 And Hazael said: But what am I thy servant a dog, that I should do this great thing? And Eliseus said: The Lord hath shewn me that thou shalt be king of Syria.

 

2010 February 2
nbjayme permalink

Morticia,
If you want to be Biblical then the Bible is not only understood by reading the Old Testament.  The New Testament have to be taken to have wholeness of understanding of what the Biblical God is.
This leads us to the New Testament and the role of Christ.  Jesus offered His sacrifice and conquered whatever is deficient in the DNA of man due to disobedience.  A great mystery indeed than only can be understood with deep reflection.
 

2010 February 2
Fractelle permalink

nbjayme
 
“This leads us to the New Testament and the role of Christ.  Jesus offered His sacrifice and conquered whatever is deficient in the DNA of man due to disobedience.  A great mystery indeed than only can be understood with deep reflection.”
 
By the many and varied authors claiming that it is all the word of their God, one wonders why this God decided to speak only to them, after our world, and we humans, had already been in existence for eons?

How did all their ancestors live in such a Godless world before the apparent son of God came among us and saved the Christian souls?

Oh yes, that’s right. All those that lived before the time of the New Testament’ must now be burning in the fires of hell…..right?
 
Or maybe, religious dogma was written by men FOR men.
 
 

2010 February 2
nbjayme permalink

“..one wonders why this God decided to speak only to them, after our world, and we humans, had already been in existence for eons?”


Well if I decided not to respond to you for 1 year since you posted the question; does that make me non-existent?  If I only decided to reply to Andy; does that make me non-existent?   I always have my prerogative, so does God.   When most people are too busy doing their stuff, they had little time to even care of God.


How did all their ancestors live in such a Godless world before the apparent son of God came among us and saved the Christian souls?
 
Adam and Eve always have God, so were their offspring.  It is man who turned away from God and worshiped another.
 
Oh yes, that’s right. All those that lived before the time of the New Testament’ must now be burning in the fires of hell…..right?
 
No, you’re wrong.  There were those who followed God even if most of society became Godless.

Or maybe, religious dogma was written by men FOR men.
God sealed that doubt through the numerous signs He sent to mankind, like the Fatima Miracle.  It’s man that decide to ignore because it will obliterate the lifestyle he thought is good and brings so much pleasure (i.e. fornication, adultery, lust, murder, greed, etc. etc.).
 
 

2010 February 3
Fractelle permalink

nbjayme
 
“God sealed that doubt through the numerous signs He sent to mankind, like the Fatima Miracle.”
No miracles, just a normal human response to create patterns out of any information matrix.
 
Please read the following link and try to learn a little about yourself and fellow humans:
“Why do people see faces in nature, interpret window stains as human figures, hear voices in random sounds generated by electronic devices or find conspiracies in the daily news? A proximate cause is the priming effect, in which our brain and senses are prepared to interpret stimuli according to an expected model. UFOlogists see a face on Mars. Religionists see the Virgin Mary on the side of a building. Paranormalists hear dead people speaking to them through a radio receiver.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns
 
You are seeing what you want to see, because your religious foundation depends on you believing – there is no fact or basis for your claims regarding the light in the sky as anything supernatural.

2010 February 3
nbjayme permalink

Fractelle,
You are seeing what you want to see, because your religious foundation depends on you believing – there is no fact or basis for your claims regarding the light in the sky as anything supernatural.
It’s not just the Miracle displayed, also the messages provided.  Three children ages below 8 years old have nothing to do with what have been declared months prior to the Miracle display at Fatima.  These are children discouraged from all sides but totally have conviction and did not fear at the point of threat by the anti-Catholic Communist state.
Examining all evidences and not a just a minor fraction compels one that God is indeed aware of what is happening in the World.  The drying of the mud and heavy soaked clothes does not fool the eye.
 
 

2010 February 3
nbjayme permalink

Fractelle,
Your vision pattern is really an elementary thing to even consider it.  Why elementary?  The Church have investigators to alleged miracles and they do welcome science to study the phenomena.  Thus, the reason that the article above knows the Church is rigorous and have rejected a lot of those so called miracles.
http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp

2010 February 3
nbjayme permalink

Sorry, it should be children of ages 10, 9, and 7.
All children did not receive much enthusiasm and support from Church, family and friends at the time of the events.

2010 February 5

Well done Nicholas.  Your post certainly elicited a most entertaining exchange.  The value in it for me was the lithification of the notion that people without a fundamental agreement as to the essential necessity of falsifiability and the inherent willingness to concede one’s position based on the provision of substantive evidence cannot come to agreement.  Rational debates are impossible when two core values are employed.  Rational arguments rarely move intuitive, and thus supernatural, thinkers.  You all inspired my current post entitled Global Consequences of Cognitive Biases. How one thinks, drives the process of debate.  Your previous post (Five Habits of the Skeptical Mind) and others like it should guide us all as we so endeavor.
http://geraldguild.com/blog/2010/02/05/global-consequences-of-cognitive-biases/
Becoming fluent in seeing and calling logical fallacies is something we all could profit from.  Although the form of such profit eludes me.  Again, the rational mind rarely moves the inuitive mind.  Ah the evolutionary costs of assigning agency to things that go bump in the night.

2010 February 5
nbjayme permalink

Sometimes one continues to be skeptical for the sake of skepticism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krq-eu2o16M
For example nickell thinks there is reason to be skeptic to “some” issues and he did not bother to proceed gathering all known facts.  The parhelion demonstrated above does not go close to the account of almeida.  This, too is done because of a set of preconcieved thoughts in mind — the Denial of God’s existence.
I’ve been a skeptic before but a true skeptic — one that does not place conclusion without facts.  It is like a detective work — you have to exert effort and be diligent at studying all submitted evidence and clues.
 

2010 February 5
nbjayme permalink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYDuntGCjxA
Of course, let us await official Church declaration on this matter. Charity in all things.
The Church takes rigorous investigation.  Fatima was only officially approved in 1930, it can be that rigorous.

2010 February 5
nbjayme permalink

Gerald.  I have read your article and have posted a comment.  My only question is that why would it need to contain “Pre-concieved” notions against religion and creationists?  Does that also prove people drive scientific facts into their biases?
Why would you not mention about evolutionist having pre-concieved notion of humans coming from ape where evidence is not yet on hand?  Isn’t that also worth mentioning to have a more balance approach on the subject of cognitive biases?
Dawkins opens up the idea of an Intelligent Designer.  Do you have scientific parameters to constrain this Intelligent Designer?
Therefore, amid rational reasoning skeptics would not recognize the self-contradiction of their own pre-conceived beliefs.
 
 

2010 February 5

nbjayme,

You solidify my point with each post. I was born and raised a Christian.  I have studied the bible and early Christian history.  I have studied evolution including reading Darwin and Dawkins extensively (among others).  Many in my family, including my most cherished loved ones are Christians and some would consider themselves creationists.  I make an effort to never preconceive or judge.  My point is that we cannot discuss this because your reality and mine are not in the same realm.   My facts are not your facts.  But what is certain, is that you are not up to date with the facts of evolution – and Dawkins, I dare say, would shutter to hear you imply in the way that you have, that he is open to the idea of an intelligent designer.  Well, that’s not completely correct, I’m guessing that his mind is open to the notion, but he could make an extensive list of examples of stunningly unintelligent designs. Have you read The Greatest Show on Earth? Clearly not. Regardless, we are all prone to cognitive errors: thus the role of science.  To quote Carl Sagan: “…the reason science works so well is partly that built-in error-correcting machinery.  There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths. That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff.  It makes no difference how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate are valued. Opinions are encouraged to contend – substantively and in depth.” Indeed! Again I must emphasize the importance of the notion that people without a fundamental agreement as to the essential necessity of falsifiability and the inherent willingness to concede one’s position based on the provision of substantive evidence cannot come to agreement.  What is substantive? – Ah, therein lies the rub.

2010 February 6
nbjayme permalink

My facts are not your facts.  But what is certain, is that you are not up to date with the facts of evolution – and Dawkins, I dare say, would shutter to hear you imply in the way that you have, that he is open to the idea of an intelligent designer.
 
Here you go again the I-am-better-informed-than-you.  Do you have scientific proof to constrain such an Intelligent Designer?
With regards to Evolution, there are different opinions coming from the combrian explosion.  That each kind of animals can originate in its own distinct tree is highly possible.    The additional possiblity of Intelligent Designer warrants the idea of a specie not brought about by evolution. It’s really a person’s cherry-picking of facts that circumvents what the real findings of science is.


What is substantive? – Ah, therein lies the rub.
The kind of susbstantive data that I come across from the skeptic arena is to see God wearing a cape flying and solve all the problems.
 

2010 February 6

Oh my, dearest nbjayme.  You continue to make my point so eloquently.  I find it curious that in one comment you accuse me of preconceiving Christians and creationists and in this post you apply a double standard  “The kind of susbstantive data that I come across from the skeptic arena is to see God wearing a cape flying and solve all the problems.” You know not how I conceive of God – and I dare say the same is true with regard to your accuraccy pertaining to how other skeptics view God.   Here you go again the I-am-better-informed-than-you.” With no apologies, that seems to be the case.  I do not intend to insult you – but your facts and arguments from authority are just not consistent with the highly scrutinized accepted literature.  And again, good science is open to alternatives, as am I.  We just need evidence.  As for the Cambrian explosion – there is ever growing data that expands the factual evidence for the theory of evolution even across the Phanerozoic eon.   Finally, as for the term theory -it deserves some clarification.  From Wikipedia, which is not necessarily the scholarly standard, but this definition will do:
The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term “theory” is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

2010 February 6

Gerald,

…people without a fundamental agreement as to the essential necessity of falsifiability and the inherent willingness to concede one’s position based on the provision of substantive evidence cannot come to agreement.

I have never seen this complex idea stated so concisely before (though I had to read that sentence a couple times before I understood it!)

Thank you for putting into words an idea I could barely formulate, let alone put in writing.

This is very important, particularly in conversations like this one. Without everyone’s agreement on a logical foundation, the conversation will get nowhere. I fear that’s what this discussion has evolved into.

Andy

2010 February 6

Thank you & Amen! :)

2010 February 6
nbjayme permalink

Hello Gerald,
We do not downplay the word Scientific Theory — the word “Scientific” means it is an inference based on observable and quantifiable experiments.  But care must be made of not forcing assumptions that haven’t been proven yet (i.e. man from apes).   The fact that even the wikipedia you quoted have an article of Superseded Scientific Theory should have informed you better.
You know not how I conceive of God –

Actually, these are the recurring reasonings below:
There are amputee … therefore no Creator/God,  Our body is not designed perfectly (we go sick) .. therefore, no Creator/God, There are earthquakes, flood, etc … therefore no Creator/God.
Like I said, it is people that want God to play their terms,  the Flying-cape-solve-everything god.
What are your scientific proof of this god you think exists?  And what scientific data do you  have in hand to constrain the nature of the Intelligent Designer?
and I dare say the same is true with regard to your accuraccy pertaining to how other skeptics view God.
I don’t have to exert much effort… the exhanges of posts and the articles I’ve read, will prove my point.
 

Comments are closed for this entry.