Yakow's valid points:
a miracle is a suspension of natural law, therefore cannot be experimentally repeated;
an apparent miracle might turn out to be scientifically explicable;
if a particular saint never lived, the basic creed might still be valid.
However:
if the Buddha never lived, then the Four Noble Truths may still be valid;
but, if Christ never lived, then his Resurrection could not have happened.
(I believe that Christ did live but that the accounts of his activities are propaganda, propagating the beliefs that he was the Messiah and replying to the counter-claim that a crucifixion victim could not have played that role.)
32 comments:
A miracle is a non-falsifiable hypothesis; therefore it cannot be rationally discussed -- either pro or con.
I think that any specific miracle claim is theoretically falsifiable, e.g., if I claim to transform water into wine and then am proved to have faked it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I think there is a third alternative you might agree with. The scientists and physicians who investigate the cures recorded at Lourdes have certified about a hundred or more as having no known natural or scientific cause. A particularly striking example being the Vittorio Micheli case.
Paul: I disagree the Gospels was mere propaganda. They are best understood as theological explications of what the facts and history about Christ MEANS.
Ad astra! Sean
I have not studied Lourdes. A philosophy lecturer told me that there was one clue. I think it was that animals injected with similar water from elsewhere died because of impurities in the water whereas animals injected with Lourdes water didn't. Something in the water.
Faith healing is a phenomenon. Someone believed that a bad skin condition was psychosomatic and healed it by hypnosis although it turned out that the condition was chemical. We have to keep looking for explanations, not write off any phenomenon as inexplicable. There is always a frontier of knowledge.
Kaor, Paul!
I can't agree with the first paragraph of your above comment. What you've reported is mere un verified and unconfirmed hearsay.
I am not talking about trivial things like skin conditions, but of persons afflicted with deadly conditions who were cured INSTANTANEOUSLY at Lourdes. Of persons dying of REAL illnesses. Those were the cases investigators had to say had no known scientific or natural causes.
To me, it's far simpler. God in His mercy sometimes acts thru the BVM to cure people at Lourdes. I also think what happens there is another way of Him saying: "See, I am real! And the Church My Son founded is true."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
1st para: Of course. I was reporting something I had heard. It would have to be investigated further before we could make anything of it.
That skin condition was not trivial but was hideous fish-scale-like disfigurement all over the legs. No hypnotic treatment would have been attempted if the chemical cause had been known. Mind somehow overcame matter as in other faith healing.
I accept that some cures have no known scientific or natural cause. To believe that God caused these cures, you have to believe in God in the first place. I have sound reasons for not believing in God.
One and the same phenomenon has the status of a miracle within one world-view and has the status of an as yet unexplained datum in another world-view.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Apologies if I was too sharp! I thought by "skin condition" you meant things like acne, eczema, rashes, fairly minor stuff of that kind. Not the truly ghastly illness you described.
And I would not be surprised if paranormal phenomena or hypnotism can sometimes cure or clear up such skin conditions. But I remain unconvinced that "mind power" explains what happens at Lourdes. I don't believe Vittorio Micheli, a man dying of bone cancer (including massive tissue and bone loss) somehow mentally willed himself to be instantaneously cured immediately on being placed in the waters of the Lourdes spring. Occam's Razor makes me believe it's simpler to believe God, acting thru the BVM, cured Signor Micheli.
I intend no offense, but I find the arguments against the existence of God strained and unconvincing. Other philosophers, from as long ago as Plato and Aristotle to modern philosophers, have offered arguments for the existence of God. Philosophy alone cannot definitely resolve this question.
Now I'm thinking I should reread Anderson's "A Chapter of Revelation," to refresh my memory on what he said about miracles. And/or C.S. Lewis' book MIRACLES. Or even exhume an ancient paper I wrote long ago for one of my courses on the miracles of Christ!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course the onus is on the believer to prove/substantiate etc his statements, not on the sceptic to disprove. I do not have to disprove the proposition that there is a China tea service in orbit 50 miles beyond Pluto. If anyone says that there is, then he must prove it, not challenge me to disprove it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't entirely agree. People who more or less think as you do have not been able to either debunk what happens at Lourdes or convincingly explain them in the ways they prefer. Instead they have had to helplessly say some of the cures studied there had no known natural or scientific causes. The onus is also on those who don't want to believe supernatural events occurs at Lourdes.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
But the "context" around Lourdes also matters. Some random spring did not inexplicably become the site of alleged miraculous cures. Rather, a young girl, Bernadette Soubirous, testified that a Lady, calling herself the Immaculate Conception appeared to her, commanding a shrine be built there for the use of pilgrims visiting the spring, etc. Frankly, I think that Christian context is what bothers some!
I agree, for people like you, the question of Lourdes remains open. I would only add that I think some who study the cures reported there do so from hostile motives. Not all, of course.
I also agree there are some who honestly believe in philosophical arguments for the non-existence of God.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Occam's Razor is the simplest explanation. Catholic doctrine is complicated but seems obvious to you because you are familiar with it.
Visionary experiences happen. A conception is an event, not a person. My theory: Bernadette had heard but not understood the phrase "Immaculate Conception" but knew that it was associated with the Virgin Mary and therefore heard the Lady say, "I am the Immaculate Conception."
Other people see and hear Krishna, the Goddess etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I was thinking of Occam's Razor in the context of the Vittorio Micheli case: how any attempts at explaining what happened to him at Lourdes in a non-supernatural way struck me as strained and overly complex.
No offense, but I disagree with your theory about Bernadette. I accept and believe she literally saw and heard the BVM.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But other people see deities or Buddhas.
But a supernatural explanation of a finite and temporal event need not refer to an infinite, eternal being. That is not the simplest possible explanation of such a phenomenon.
Finite human minds exist. They can have healing abilities. Faith healing happens. A lot of faith is focussed on Lourdes. As a hypothesis, finite human minds, not an infinite divine mind, are the explanation. But this is only a hypothesis for an as yet unexplained phenomenon. No need to claim to have found a definite explanation as yet. Certainly no need to devise strained and complex naturalistic explanations - except (maybe) as a first step toward refining such explanations into something simpler and (above all) testable.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I don't believe pagan gods are real and actual beings. And I thought Buddha never claimed to be even a prophet, let alone a god.
While St. Paul warned us that Satan can appear like an angel of light, to deceive us, I don't believe the Adversary is capable of something as good as the cures recorded at Lourdes. Which means I am skeptical of human beings, far less powerful than the angels, even with a massive concentration of faith there, willing the cures of people like Micheli.
While I disagree with the hypothesis you suggested, I'm glad you only propose it as a theory.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We continually speak past each other. I don't believe pagan gods are real. I know the Buddha did not claim divinity. My point is that people do have visionary experiences in which they see (imagine they see, whatever you like) imagined, mythological, supernatural beings as Bernadette saw the Lady.
I am sceptical of human beings causing cures but the cures happen so we have to consider every conceivable explanation, not just defend one explanation against all others. I am more than a little sceptical of God's existence so God causing the cures is not high on my list of probable explanations.
Paul.
BTW, an Indian yogi, Prahlad Jani, claimed not to have eaten or drunk anything for about 60 years. There was some supporting evidence. He was scientifically observed for 10 days. Reportedly, he did not eat, drink, excrete or urinate and his body was in an odd state as we can partly see in the videos: a slim, teenage-like body, neither decrepit nor emaciated, under a very old face. Frankly weird. He said that, when he was 7, the goddess, Amba, appeared and told him that he would not need to eat or drink.
I accept Jani as a phenomenon comparable to Lourdes or to Ramakrishna seeing both Kali and Christ. I feel no obligation to explain, explain away, rationalize, debunk, discredit etc. Let the evidence - all the evidence - lead us where it will at its own pace.
It was suggested that Jani was an extreme adaptation to starvation and water deprivation. We should respect his vision which (maybe) was his mind interpreting his experience in terms of his received tradition.
Paul.
"Defend" is another of the things that I do not feel obliged to do.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry that I so often misunderstand you that I "speak pass you."
I accept your word that various non-Christians you know have stated they had visionary experiences. I simply don't believe they were REAL. I'm not saying they were all liars, merely mistaken.
Even if it's possible that "mental powers" or hypnotism might cure people of nasty skin diseases of the kind you mentioned above, I don't believe that is likely in cases like that of Vittorio Micheli, dying as he had been of bone cancer. I still believe God's action is a more probable explanation for Micheli's cure than "mental power."
I'm skeptical that Prahlad Jani did not eat or drink anything for sixty years. The human body needs some minimum of food and water to LIVE, after all. All the same, the Jani case indicates there might be something to ESP or psi powers.
I'm reminded of how there were cases of Catholic mystics who subsisted only on a little water and the consecrated Host, the Body of Christ, from the Mass. But the Church tends to frown on such extreme asceticism. There were popes who revised the constitutions of the Franciscans and Jesuits, to make them LESS ascetic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But what is a REAL experience? Some mystics have really had the experience of seeing Christ, Krishna etc. This does not mean that the figure seen literally existed. It means that the human mind sometimes projects culturally conditioned visions. Bernadette sees visions of a Lady in a blue gown because she has seen pictures and statues of Mary in a blue gown. The content of the vision is clearly determined by the religious tradition of the visionary.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The problem is we have irreconcilable and incompatible POVs. I believe the supernatural, God, is real, but you do not. I believe that if God is real, then miracles are possible. Again, I think you do not. And so on.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, if you resort to merely affirming a belief, then you give up on any attempt to present either evidence or arguments for it.
IF God is real, then miracles (divine interventions) are possible. I agree with that because it is a tautology.
Unexplained cures are presented as evidence for God's intervention, thus for his existence. But then it turns out that it is necessary to believe that God exists if you are to accept the cures as miracles. Circular.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
A circular argument is not necessarily false.
My view is that philosophical arguments about the existence or not of God can never be DEFINITIVE. There are as many arguments for the existence of God as against.
Therefore, for believers, their belief in God has to based on faith and revelation. And I believe Christianity, esp. Catholic Christianity to be not only true, but also the most solidly grounded of faiths.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A circular argument is false. Example: I know that God exists because the Bible says so and I know that what the Bible says is true because the Bible is the Word of God. That is false as an argument. It does not prove its conclusion.
Your circularity: You suggested that God was the simplest explanation of certain otherwise unexplained cures but then it turned out that you believed that the cures were caused by God because you already believed that God exists and can cause cures. So the belief preceded and provided a premise for the alleged proof. Circularity. An invalid argument.
I have possibly read every proof of God's existence and I argue against all of them. The non-believer in God is not obliged to present proofs of his non-existence. The believer has to prevent proofs.
If belief is based on faith in revelation, then we need not discuss alleged proofs.
Paul.
present, not prevent.
(I typed that while sitting down to a meal.)
Kaor, Paul!
I was thinking that syllogisms are circular. E.g., all dogs are canines, pugs are dogs, therefore pugs are canines. That is not false!
(I used pugs because of affectionate memories of the pug my family had when I was a boy.)
Philosophic arguments for God's existence does not convince you. But similar arguments for God not existing have not convinced other philosophers. I still believe philosophy cannot definitely answer this question.
Therefore philosophy cannot prove or disprove the supernatural claims of Christianity. Including the belief of the Church that God sometimes acts in the world thru miracles.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But a syllogism is not circular. Its conclusion is not also one of its premises.
But we don't have to argue for God not existing. The onus of proof is on the person who makes the positive statement.
If philosophy cannot answer the question, then it is pointless to offer proofs for God's existence.
But we don't have to disprove supernatural claims. Those making the claims have to prove them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Re syllogisms, etc., then I have been incompetent in this discussion of ours.
I would add as well that it is equally pointless to offer arguments for God not existing.
Many who believe God is real have tried to reason with those who don't. Some do so by offering philosophic arguments for the existence of God. Others have pointed out certain very striking incidents, miracles, like the Micheli case, as evidence for something so strange happening that it was easier to think God performed the miracle. Not some vaguely defined "mental power.
I believe those who deny God is real and the supernatural origins of miracles also take on some of that onus.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But those who see no reason to accept the proposition that X exists are not obliged to offer arguments that X does not exist.
A miracle can simply be seen as an as yet unexplained event.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your first sentence above still leaves me dissatisfied. I still think it's reasonable to ask those who disbelieve in the reality of Proposition X to justify why they think that way.
As for miracles, "an unexplained event" is basically what the medical investigators at Lourdes described cases like that of Micheli. I believe those cures were actual divine interventions thru the intercession of the BVM.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is reasonable to ask but the answer might be: "I see no reason to believe it." I do not believe that there is a China tea service in orbit 50 miles beyond Pluto but I am not obliged to prove that there is not. I would certainly pay attention if anyone claimed that there is evidence that there is one. But not if they fell back on challenging me to disprove it.
But we are always gathering new data, including phenomena that have not been explained yet. Knowledge advances. Theories and explanations never keep up with the evidence.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I can agree with at least your second paragraph above.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is an infinite number of propositions that we do not subscribe to. We do not need to keep saying that and why we do not subscribe to them.
Paul.
Post a Comment