Billions of people have HD video cameras in their pockets: why aren't we seeing lots of miracles on video?

[inocente]

Let’s go over this again:

The conclusion was a joke.

You buy into everything else in the paper, including the illustration of the red nosed reindeer made from a smear, and only saw the joke when you got to the conclusion?

I thought the whole thing was nicely comedic, right from the very first line:
“Leonard Leibovici, professor ”

*The data however is the data, and this one unique study revealed a correlation between “remote prayer” and improved outcome. Meaningful perhaps, or a statistical fluke. *

Perhaps you’ve not heard the saying “lies, lies and statistics”. Perhaps you’ve not seen a statistical study proving positive health benefits of beer, then next week a statistical study proving negative health benefits from beer, then next week a statistical study proving…

A lot of independent statistic studies are necessary to demonstrate health benefits, not just a single light-hearted paper in a festive journal.

*Prayer is not a tool, some positive energy force, something one does to make one’s situation better. It does not cajole some powerful entity to do what you want.

How the empirically, scientifically derived statistical results make sense is that God initiates the contact.*

Leibovici (professor ) couldn’t really have designed the study to have a greater disconnect from the God of Abraham. Take who got better more quickly. Names on a computer listing. Names pulled out of a hat randomly by a computer. If it had chosen differently then others would have got better more quickly instead. The “god” made no decision, the computer decided.

*To think that God can be of assistance in helping reduce health costs is nonsense. God is not a pawn of big business. *

The report doesn’t say whether the computer happened to choose more patients insured by company X than by company Y. If it did, company X saved a pretty penny on bed costs. God as a pawn of big business.

You and Brad seem to be the only ones here making that claim and then ridiculing it. I don’t want to say what it sounds like when you say such things.

I’m still waiting for you to cite the official documents on vatican.va supporting remote retroactive prayer. It’s been several days now and I’m still waiting. There’s no point you trying to insinuate anything here. Please, no more procrastinating, cite Church teaching which supports remote retroactive prayer or admit it doesn’t.

 

[inocente]

It tells us a lot about your notion of reality! It is amusing you use big business to discount divine love in action on earth. Is financial success your main guide to the value of prayer?

Wondered when the holier-than-thou would make an appearance.

Let’s just take a moment to look at what you call divine love.

“In July 2000 a random number generator (Proc Uniform, SAS, Cary, NC, USA) was used to randomise the patients into two groups. A coin was tossed to designate the intervention group. A list of the first names of the patients in the intervention group was given to a person who said a short prayer for the well being and full recovery of the group as a whole.” - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61047/

And supposedly God made those patients better more quickly.

I refuse to believe the Church agrees that’s got anything to do with divine love. I asked you several days ago to cite the Church teaching from vatican.va which supports remote retroactive prayer. Still waiting.

You have overlooked the fact that a scrupulous investigation (which is insisted on by the Church) would include X-rays taken subsequently. Do you believe the Pope and cardinals are intent on deceiving everyone?

I’ve not seen anything stating that X-rays were taken. But fair enough, please cite the official Church paper you have before you stating that X-rays were taken. Or is this yet another time not to hold my breath?

 

[inocente]

You have overlooked the fact that a scrupulous investigation (which is insisted on by the Church) would include X-rays taken subsequently. Do you believe the Pope and cardinals are intent on deceiving everyone?

Incidentally.

The Bishop of Bruges declared the miracle in July 1908.

At that time X-ray machines were very dangerous due to the long exposure times necessary. Edison stopped making them after one of his workers died in 1903. There were many cases of burns, and other deaths included Elizabeth Ascheim in 1905, Wolfram Fuchs 1907, William Egelhoff 1907 and Rome Wagner 1908. Deaths continued for several more years (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3520298/).

So if, as you claim, the Pope and cardinals insisted on using this new X-ray technology, did they do so before the Bishop declared the miracle in 1908, knowing they were putting the lives of technicians at risk merely to get some fuzzy images, now apparently lost?

Or are you claiming they only insisted on X-rays when they knew the technology was safe, which wouldn’t be the case until several years after the miracle was declared?

Or perhaps I’ve overlooked some further fact in this tangle. Please let me know.

 

[MPat]

Confirmation bias is our tendency to only see things which confirm our preconceptions, and to ignore everything which doesn’t. For example, we might only see the words research - prayer - effect.

It quickly gets worse. With a warm fuzzy feeling we incorporate it into our beliefs, and with that sense of ownership interpret any criticism as an attack on our beliefs. We post-rationalize our attachment and so decide the criticism is irrational emotion. (I refer you to your post.)

I think you guys fell into that trap before you had time to notice the detail - a person of undisclosed (or no) faith saying “a short prayer” over a computer-generated list of names. But only first names, so no clue as to which Daniels were on the list and which weren’t, and the person saying the words didn’t know any of them from Adam anyway.

So not really a prayer then. No need for your Church to exist, no need for a relationship with God, no need to be sincere. None of what is meant by prayer. More an incantation, a series of words said as a magic spell. Just make an incantation to the Great Slot Machine in the Sky and you’re done.

All on the basis of a single article illustrated with a picture of stained cells in the shape of Rudolf, published light-heartedly in a festive edition of the BMJ.

So, first, your argument attacks a strawman. I think that part has been covered well enough already. But no, I don’t think you’ll want to notice it.

Second, you do not even try to show anything is “Morally obscene” here. Confirmation bias can be “silly”, “stupid”, “gullible”. Not “Morally obscene”.

So, once again, why would God helping someone to heal sooner because of some prayer and not stopping the Holocaust outright (especially given other circumstances, like Allied leadership ignoring the reports from Polish government-in-exile) have to be “Morally obscene”? Or do you take that back?

Third, you do not seem to be doing that well against the strawman either…

For all the things you listed at most might show that one should not count on the faster healing under such conditions. But, even while attacking the strawman, you have to show not just that it is unexpected - you have to show that it is impossible.

I doubt you’ll get anywhere close to that… And no, “How dare you suggest that God might grant some ‘minor’ requests while not granting same ‘major’ ones!” is not close.

Now might be a good time for you guys to disclose your qualifications on interpreting statistics in medical research, that you can all be so certain about the validity. Talk about emotional short-cuts. I’m still waiting for anyone to cite documents on vatican.va confirming that the Church teaches the value of remote retroactive prayer.

Naturally, I see no reason do do that.

What you have been given is sufficient.

 

[tonyrey]

You have overlooked the fact that a scrupulous investigation (which is insisted on by the Church) would include X-rays taken subsequently. Do you believe the Pope and cardinals are intent on deceiving everyone?

Incidentally.

The Bishop of Bruges declared the miracle in July 1908.

At that time X-ray machines were very dangerous due to the long exposure times necessary. Edison stopped making them after one of his workers died in 1903. There were many cases of burns, and other deaths included Elizabeth Ascheim in 1905, Wolfram Fuchs 1907, William Egelhoff 1907 and Rome Wagner 1908. Deaths continued for several more years (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3520298/).

So if, as you claim, the Pope and cardinals insisted on using this new X-ray technology, did they do so before the Bishop declared the miracle in 1908, knowing they were putting the lives of technicians at risk merely to get some fuzzy images, now apparently lost?

Or are you claiming they only insisted on X-rays when they knew the technology was safe, which wouldn’t be the case until several years after the miracle was declared?
My exact words were:

You have overlooked the fact that a scrupulous investigation (which is insisted on by the Church) would include X-rays taken subsequently.

The key words are “a scrupulous investigation” which is evident from the fact that in spite of thousands of claims only sixty-nine miraculous cures at Lourdes have been recognised by the Church in over a hundred years. Since the public has doesn’t have access to the files kept by the International Medical Committee it is impossible to know for certain whether X-rays were considered necessary in Pierre de Rudder’s case because in addition to the photos eye-witnesses from the village where he lived, several doctors who had examined him, the Viscount de Bus and the Marquise de Courtebourne had given detailed descriptions of the sequence of events over a period of eight years from the time a tree trunk had crushed his leg until it was healed :

A number of years previous to his cure both tibia and fibula had been fractured, and, instead of reuniting, the broken ends had suppurated. The surgeons removed nearly an inch of the terminal surfaces in the hope of obtaining a union of the fresh faces. Instead, these too decayed. It follows that both bones were considerably shorter than those of the right leg. The next fact we draw attention to is that, before a shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes, the bones were instantaneously reunited, and that firmly and without trace even of a callus. The wound was healed, and De Rudder walked. His gait during life, and more especially the post-mortem examination, proved that the bones of both limbs were absolutely equal in length. There had been the instantaneous formation of about one inch of strong, healthy bone,not to speak of the surrounding tissues.

miraclesoflourdes.blogspot.co.uk/p/pieter-de-rudder.html

If you are open-minded the following accounts will give you food for thought:
listverse.com/2014/02/20/10-amazing-stories-of-supernatural-healing-at-lourdes//

The latest recognised cure occurred in 1989:
en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles/danila-castelli

I shall be interested to know how you explain these events…

 

[tonyrey]

There are no xrays of the guys leg. For heavens sake, at some point you surely have to say: ok, I was wrong there.

The more you try to avoid it, the less credibility you have.

Your dogmatism and scepticism are totally unjustified. You don’t know for certain whether there are x-rays and neither do I. It is such a famous case that in spite of all the detailed evidence the specialists may well have wanted to examine the bones themselves to eliminate any possibility of doubt. They are not so credulous and unprofessional as you seem to think because not only is their reputation is at stake they also have integrity and self-respect. What would they stand to gain by deception? Precisely nothing!

 

[tonyrey]

Incidentally.

The Bishop of Bruges declared the miracle in July 1908.

At that time X-ray machines were very dangerous due to the long exposure times necessary. Edison stopped making them after one of his workers died in 1903. There were many cases of burns, and other deaths included Elizabeth Ascheim in 1905, Wolfram Fuchs 1907, William Egelhoff 1907 and Rome Wagner 1908. Deaths continued for several more years (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3520298/).

So if, as you claim, the Pope and cardinals insisted on using this new X-ray technology, did they do so before the Bishop declared the miracle in 1908, knowing they were putting the lives of technicians at risk merely to get some fuzzy images, now apparently lost?

Or are you claiming they only insisted on X-rays when they knew the technology was safe, which wouldn’t be the case until several years after the miracle was declared?

A clear case of misrepresentation! I haven’t even mentioned the Pope and cardinals, let alone that they insisted on using this new X-ray technology.
Does your scepticism about miracles apply to Jesus and His Apostles even though they are recorded in the New Testament? If not do you have any reason for believing there have **never **been any answers to prayer by anyone else in the world, let alone Christians?

 

[tonyrey]

inocente;14146172:

My exact words were:
The key words are “a scrupulous investigation” which is evident from the fact that in spite of thousands of claims only sixty-nine miraculous cures at Lourdes have been recognised by the Church in over a hundred years. Since the public has doesn’t have access to the files kept by the International Medical Committee it is impossible to know for certain whether X-rays were considered necessary in Pierre de Rudder’s case because in addition to the photos eye-witnesses from the village where he lived, several doctors who had examined him, the Viscount de Bus and the Marquise de Courtebourne had given detailed descriptions of the sequence of events over a period of eight years from the time a tree trunk had crushed his leg until it was healed :

miraclesoflourdes.blogspot.co.uk/p/pieter-de-rudder.html

Sixty-six of the unexplained cures at Lourdes are described in an online extract from a book by Rose Martin:

amazon.com/Every-Pilgrims-Guide-Lourdes-Martin/dp/1853116270

 

[Aloysium]

Atheists are not going to get it because miracles, if not simply denied and ignored, will always be part of the noise of the universe, random statistical anomalies, stuff that happens that will be explained scientifically in some future date where people fly around in spaceships with inertial dampers and artificial gravity. Loved the movies, btw.

As Christians, what are we to make of healing miracles when our symbol of transcendence is the Cross. In today’s Gospel, taken from Luke 14, we hear: " . . . Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple . . . everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple." Suffering does not come directly from God, but is of this world. When we cling to things that are transient and illusory, we suffer with their loss. Through the overcoming, the meeting of the challenges that arise in life, we grow. We can become ever more loving persons in the giving of ourselves to one another and to God. We were not meant to dwell in this our current condition for eternity. We were cast out of eternity, with a flaming sword of time preventing our return. The fruit of eternal life lies in the middle of the garden which constitutes our existence, centred on Christ. It is through His grace that we are healed; and of this we are reminded with these miracles, as we are of His ever-presence in our lives, no farther than the next prayer.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheists are not going to get it because miracles, if not simply denied and ignored, will always be part of the noise of the universe, random statistical anomalies, stuff that happens that will be explained scientifically in some future date where people fly around in spaceships with inertial dampers and artificial gravity. Loved the movies, btw.

As Christians, what are we to make of healing miracles when our symbol of transcendence is the Cross. In today’s Gospel, taken from Luke 14, we hear: " . . . Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple . . . everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple." Suffering does not come directly from God, but is of this world. When we cling to things that are transient and illusory, we suffer with their loss. Through the overcoming, the meeting of the challenges that arise in life, we grow. We can become ever more loving persons in the giving of ourselves to one another and to God. We were not meant to dwell in this our current condition for eternity. We were cast out of eternity, with a flaming sword of time preventing our return. The fruit of eternal life lies in the middle of the garden which constitutes our existence, centred on Christ. It is through His grace that we are healed; and of this we are reminded with these miracles, as we are of His ever-presence in our lives, no farther than the next prayer.

I entirely agree. Without miracles Christianity has lost the meaning of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus healed the afflicted not only because He had compassion for them but also because He wanted to demonstrate the power of prayer. He let Himself be tortured and murdered to liberate us from a this-worldly mentality which isolates us from God’s love for us here and now. I’m sure we grossly underestimate the extent to which He intervenes in our lives. I’'ve had more than thirty narrow escapes from death dating from before I was born and in such different circumstances I’m amazed I’m still alive. Sometimes we don’t even know how close we were to our last breath…

 

[inocente]

So, first, your argument attacks a strawman. I think that part has been covered well enough already. But no, I don’t think you’ll want to notice it.

You already played that card and I already answered.

inocente;14144201:

Now might be a good time for you guys to disclose your qualifications on interpreting statistics in medical research, that you can all be so certain about the validity. Talk about emotional short-cuts. I’m still waiting for anyone to cite documents on vatican.va confirming that the Church teaches the value of remote retroactive prayer.

Naturally, I see no reason do do that.

What you have been given is sufficient.

Then you appear to have confirmed you’ve no relevant qualifications, and that the Church doesn’t teach what you’re preaching.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . the Church doesn’t teach what you’re preaching.

The Church does not preach what you are saying, which differs from what people have been posting.

 

[tonyrey]

Your dogmatism and scepticism are totally unjustified. You don’t know for certain whether there are x-rays and neither do I. It is such a famous case that in spite of all the detailed evidence the specialists may well have wanted to examine the bones themselves to eliminate any possibility of doubt. They are not so credulous and unprofessional as you seem to think because not only is their reputation is at stake they also have integrity and self-respect. What would they stand to gain by deception? Precisely nothing!

It seems more likely than not that x-rays have been taken because Pierre de Rudder’s recovery occurred more than a hundred years ago and would benefit from further corroboration. There is more detailed evidence by an American bishop who talked to him and his neighbours in his village:

query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E05E6DD1230EE32A25754C1A9649D94689ED7CF

 

[inocente]

The key words are “a scrupulous investigation” which is evident from the fact that in spite of thousands of claims only sixty-nine miraculous cures at Lourdes have been recognised by the Church in over a hundred years. Since the public has doesn’t have access to the files kept by the International Medical Committee it is impossible to know for certain whether X-rays were considered necessary in Pierre de Rudder’s case because in addition to the photos eye-witnesses from the village where he lived, several doctors who had examined him, the Viscount de Bus and the Marquise de Courtebourne had given detailed descriptions of the sequence of events over a period of eight years from the time a tree trunk had crushed his leg until it was healed :

miraclesoflourdes.blogspot.co.uk/p/pieter-de-rudder.html

If you are open-minded the following accounts will give you food for thought:
listverse.com/2014/02/20/10-amazing-stories-of-supernatural-healing-at-lourdes//

The latest recognised cure occurred in 1989:
en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles/danila-castelli

I shall be interested to know how you explain these events…

I asked for documents on vatican.va confirming that the Church teaches the value of remote retroactive prayer. No one has linked any.

And you’ve failed to cite anything indicating that X-rays were taken as you claim.

As your opinions on those two counts seem to be an evidence-free zone, and indeed at times run counter to evidence, you would seem somewhat ambitious to try to add even more events to those already on the table.

But perhaps you’ll have more joy in a third attempt. Take your last link above to Danila Castelli.

There’s an obvious point about confirmation bias which we should rule out first. The point is that if evidence is only looked for where it’s expected, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If evidence of spontaneous healing among the general population is never looked for, and is only discovered in an environment where it’s especially desired, we can’t compare apples with apples. For all we know, medically unexplained healing might even occur more frequently elsewhere. We just don’t have any evidence to decide.

Now I’m speculating, perhaps you’ll find such evidence or perhaps it doesn’t exist. If not then we just don’t know how many Danilas are out there, we don’t know how many Danilas go to the local pool and get cured or go on holiday and get cured, or whatever, because we only looked where we expected to find spontaneous healings.

 

[inocente]

A clear case of misrepresentation! I haven’t even mentioned the Pope and cardinals, let alone that they insisted on using this new X-ray technology.

You said the Pope and cardinals, and I quoted you saying it in that very post. Here’s your post again, it’s still on the thread if you want to go and look at it.

You have overlooked the fact that a scrupulous investigation (which is insisted on by the Church) would include X-rays taken subsequently. Do you believe the Pope and cardinals are intent on deceiving everyone?

Perhaps there’s something paranormal going on, where no one but me can see that you said the Pope and cardinals, or everyone but you can see it. Or perhaps there’s another explanation :coffeeread:.

 

[inocente]

The Church does not preach what you are saying, which differs from what people have been posting.

People have been claiming that remote retroactive prayer works. They’ve not produced any evidence whatsoever that the Church also claims remote retroactive prayer works.

So it would seem at least possible, and perhaps highly probable, that the Church preaches remote retroactive prayer doesn’t work.

Which differs from what some people have been posting. But there you go.

 

[tonyrey]

A clear case of misrepresentation! I haven’t even mentioned the Pope and cardinals, let alone that they insisted on using this new X-ray technology.

It should be obvious I didn’t mean the Pope and cardinals were directly involved in the investigation because it is the local bishop who makes the decision about whether a miracle has occurred after consultation with the International Medical Committee of Lourdes. If there were any doubt about the authenticity of the miracle they would ask for further evidence especially in a case of canonisation because they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the reputation of the Church.

You haven’t answered my questions:

Does your scepticism about miracles apply to Jesus and His Apostles even though they are recorded in the New Testament? If not do you have any reason for believing there have **never **been any answers to prayer by anyone else in the world, let alone Christians?

 

[tonyrey]

I asked for documents on vatican.va confirming that the Church teaches the value of remote retroactive prayer. No one has linked any.

Strawman. God exists in the eternal present. He knows what we pray for regardless of when we pray.

And you’ve failed to cite anything indicating that X-rays were taken as you claim.

I haven’t stated that they were taken.

As your opinions on those two counts seem to be an evidence-free zone, and indeed at times run counter to evidence, you would seem somewhat ambitious to try to add even more events to those already on the table.

No evidence is required!

But perhaps you’ll have more joy in a third attempt. Take your last link above to Danila Castelli.

There’s an obvious point about confirmation bias which we should rule out first. The point is that if evidence is only looked for where it’s expected, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If evidence of spontaneous healing among the general population is never looked for, and is only discovered in an environment where it’s especially desired, we can’t compare apples with apples. For all we know, medically unexplained healing might even occur more frequently elsewhere. We just don’t have any evidence to decide.

Now I’m speculating, perhaps you’ll find such evidence or perhaps it doesn’t exist. If not then we just don’t know how many Danilas are out there, we don’t know how many Danilas go to the local pool and get cured or go on holiday and get cured, or whatever, because we only looked where we expected to find spontaneous healings.

You seem to have overlooked the website to which I referred:

Danila Castelli, born on 16 january 1946, wife and family mother, had lived a more or less normal life until the age of 34 when she started having spontaneous and severe blood pressure hypertensive crisis. In 1982 some Rx and ultrasound tests detect a right para-uterine mass and a fibromatous uterus. Danila is operated for hysterectomy and annexectomy. In november 1982 she undergoes partial pancreatectomy. A scintigraphy the following year proves the existence of «pheochromocytoma » (a tumor that secretes high amounts of catecholamines) in the rectal, bladder and vaginal region. More surgical interventions follow in the attempt to stop the triggers to the crisis until 1988 but with no bettering at all. In may 1989, during a pilgrimage to Lourdes, Danila gets out of the Baths where she had been immerged and she feels an extraordinary feeling of wellbeing. Shortly after she reported to the Lourdes Office of Medical Observations (Bureau des Constatations Médicales de Lourdes) her instantaneous alleged cure. After five meetings (1989, 1992, 1994, 1997 and 2010) the Bureau certified the cure with an unanimous vote : « Mrs Castelli was cured, in a complete and lasting way, from the date of her pilgrimage to Lourdes – 21 years ago – of the syndrome she had suffered and with no relation with the treatments and the surgeries she received ». Danila Castelli has since gone back to an absolute normal life. The CMIL (Lourdes International Medical Committee) in its annual meeting of 19 november 2011 in Paris has certified that the cure « remains unexplained according to current scientific knowledge ». On June 20th 2013 Monsignor Giovanni Giudici, Bishop of Pavia, the diocesis where Danila Castelli lives, has declared the « prodigious-miraculous » character and the value of « sign » of this cure.** It is the 69th cure of Lourdes recognized as miraculous by a Bishop.**

en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/…anila-castelli

 

[MPat]

You already played that card and I already answered.

Oh, I have repeated the same arguments many times. I’m afraid you did not really answer them. Just like you gave no actual argument concerning “Moral outrage”.

Then you appear to have confirmed you’ve no relevant qualifications, and that the Church doesn’t teach what you’re preaching.

Do you expect me to send you my CV or what?

Seriously, how would one even try to prove some sort of “qualifications” here?

People have been claiming that remote retroactive prayer works.

They have?

What would that mean? “Work” - as in “automatically”?

No, that’s only what you are hearing.

People are saying that God can take “retroactive” prayers into account - just like any other prayers.

They’ve not produced any evidence whatsoever that the Church also claims remote retroactive prayer works.

Naturally, since no one claims that (with the sense of “works” I was talking about).

So it would seem at least possible, and perhaps highly probable, that the Church preaches remote retroactive prayer doesn’t work.

Um, at best, it would mean that Church doesn’t preach that retroactive prayer “works” (and it doesn’t - if “works” is to be understood in the sense of “automatically”).

In fact, the one thing we know about prayers is that they “work” in ways that are unpredictable to us. By your example of Holocaust you have suggested that prayers should “work” when the thing being asked for is very good, just, important, being asked by many men… But is that hypothesis confirmed by, let’s say, Bible? Prayer of Jesus before crucifixion did not prevent crucifixion, although the thing being asked for would seem to be important. Mary’s request for wine for wedding feast would seem to be less important, but it was granted…

 

[Bradski]

People are saying that God can take “retroactive” prayers into account - just like any other prayers.

B: I was seriously ill and now I am somehow cured.
M: The power of prayer!
B: No, no-one knew I was sick.
M: But I will pray for you today.
B: But I’m OK now.
M: Yes, the power of prayer!

Can you explain why there is a reason to pray for someone who has already gotten better? And assuming that you have done this (why wouldn’t you if ypu believe it works), maybe you could give us an example. Something like:

Please help Dave who…um…used to be sick.