How do atheists explain Eucharistic Miracles

[MPat]

But to loop things back to the topic of the discussion, since you don’t think we can identify what an extraordinary claim is

Um, I did not say that.

I said things like these: 1) “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” is a useless principle (whenever it is not actually harmful), 2) when that principle is being applied, “extraordinary claim” is usually defined as “a claim I do not like” (and “extraordinary evidence” as “evidence that is not available” - by the way, how comes no one responded to this part?).

And identifying claims someone doesn’t like is not always hard.

Thus your argument falls apart.

That is not what I said, and it is not what I meant.

It is not what you said, it is not what you wanted it to mean, but that’s what it means anyway.

So please stop telling me what I think. It has already been pointed out to you that this is not a respectful attitude.

By the way, just before saying that you were doing precisely the same thing you accuse me of doing. For you responded as if I said you said or intended to say that you do not like those claims. Which is not what I said, meant or thought. (That, coincidentally, is what was wrong in approach of that other user: he did not say how what I said was a misrepresentation, he just claimed it is.)

And yes, I know you do not want to be held responsible for logical consequences (and the like) of your views (especially when they are obviously unreasonable), and want to claim that you are only responsible for what you explicitly said and meant. That is common (especially among atheists). But unreasonable. And, if you wish, disrespectful. Such an attitude is deservedly ridiculed in dialogue “Thermippos” (The Joy of Curmudgeonry: Thermippos — The Complete Dialogue).

If one wants a serious discussion, one has to either accept that it has not been established that one’s views are reasonable, or to prove that they are. Likewise, one has to accept that it has not been established one is reasonable, honest etc., or prove that one is.

Yes, that’s a risk. But then, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.”.

One of the explorations of Mars this year reports back that it has found creatures living in burrows on the Mars surface. That runs counter to our current understanding of Mars. An extraordinarily claim, and one I would very much like to see proved. Do I just believe it? Certainly not. I would require extraordinarily convincing evidence.

Why not take an example that is even more simple: the claim that one has one billion dollars in one’s bank account?

Well, the right question here is this: what can “like” mean? And it can mean several things.

You responded assuming that I meant “ordinary claim” is “a claim one would like to be true”. But it is more like “a claim one would like to believe”.

And believing such claims, um, has its downsides…

 

[Dan123]

After doing some reading it sounds like this particular body was stolen and then rediscovered sometime later due to political upheavals. How was it determined this is the body of St. Alexander of Svir and not someone younger? It sounds like it was because he was buried the way a monk would have been and it looked like him without a beard. Hard to comment on that as the face isn’t shown.

Also seeing some information that the non-invasive study suggested it was a much more recent body too, and that invasive studies weren’t allowed.

I have no problem with people examining relics as long as they don’t damage or desecrate them. If we have to commit a sacrilege to do an investigation (e.g. destroying a piece of Jesus’ “blood” in the shroud) then it’s not licit.

The idea of studying something is to find out if it is a relic or not, or at least try to provide more evidence for/against. You’re starting with the conclusion that e.g. it is the burial shroud, therefore it shouldn’t be studied to see if it’s the burial shroud. This is a fantastic way to accept fakes and forgeries into your life.

 

[Dan123]

Why not take an example that is even more simple: the claim that one has one billion dollars in one’s bank account?

Well, the right question here is this: what can “like” mean? And it can mean several things.

You responded assuming that I meant “ordinary claim” is “a claim one would like to be true”. But it is more like “a claim one would like to believe”.

And believing such claims, um, has its downsides…

I’m confused by your example are you saying the claim is that someone is trying to convince themselves that they have a billion dollars?

 

[Pattylt]

I agree that science doesn’t have answers to all the incorruptible bodies. They do have explanations for many and not all incorruptible bodies are saints…an entire town in Mexico had to dig up a cemetery and found the bodies all preserved. This was due to mummification which will happen in any salty soil.

Here’s a partial explanation and even it admits to some remaining mysterious. The problem is the mysterious ones are often not allowed to be investigated either.

How can a corpse be incorruptible? | HowStuffWorks

 

[PickyPicky]

It is not what you said, it is not what you wanted it to mean, but that’s what it means anyway.

You know what I mean better than I do? There you go again.

For you responded as if I said you said or intended to say that you do not like those claims. Which is not what I said, meant or thought.

Not at all. I responded as if you said this:

Or, in other words, you do not like them

And now …

And yes, I know you do not want to be held responsible for logical consequences (and the like) of your views (especially when they are obviously unreasonable),

Again, you should not claim to have inside information about my mental processes — especially when your claim is quite incorrect.

Why not take an example that is even more simple: the claim that one has one billion dollars in one’s bank account?

Why not take the examples I gave, given that you asked me to provide examples?

You responded assuming that I meant “ordinary claim” is “a claim one would like to be true”. But it is more like “a claim one would like to believe”.

No I didn’t. You asked me

If you want to show that liking a claim as such does not play any part, you have to show what happens when claim is liked with evidence playing less of a part.

— two examples where I would be sceptical of a claim without extraordinary evidence, despite my liking the claim.

 

[ReaderT]

After doing some reading it sounds like this particular body was stolen and then rediscovered sometime later due to political upheavals. How was it determined this is the body of St. Alexander of Svir and not someone younger? It sounds like it was because he was buried the way a monk would have been and it looked like him without a beard. Hard to comment on that as the face isn’t shown.

Also seeing some information that the non-invasive study suggested it was a much more recent body too, and that invasive studies weren’t allowed.

We have records going back hundreds of years saying the body was always incorrupt: When it was first unearthed on April 17, 1641. the relics were found incorruptible (source).

The body was taken by the Soviets in 1918 and transported to a medical university, where they tried to determine what made it incorrupt. A student who was alone with the body claimed that the eyes opened, which made him run out of the room screaming. After that, the relics were sent to Petrograd’s Military Medical Academy, where they were put in storage and lost until the 1990s. When they were rediscovered, the relics were found to be incorrupt, just as they were when they were confiscated. The saint’s appearance matched the description in the records from 1641.

Very important to note: no embalming techniques, even those used today, can stop mold spores in the air from corrupting the remains. After about 1 year buried, corpses have black spots (like moldy bread) from top to bottom. Nothing can account for Alexander’s pristine body.

The idea of studying something is to find out if it is a relic or not, or at least try to provide more evidence for/against. You’re starting with the conclusion that e.g. it is the burial shroud, therefore it shouldn’t be studied to see if it’s the burial shroud. This is a fantastic way to accept fakes and forgeries into your life.

What I mean is: if something is claimed to be the remains of God’s blood, we have to treat it with care. If there are other ways to test it, go for it, but destruction is imprudent.

 

[ReaderT]

Thank you for the article - I actually looked up the mummies that they mentioned. (They can be found by googling “Panteon Cemetery Mummies” or “Mummies of Guanajuanto”) - But it’s clear that the “mummies” are very corrupted, most are barely intact. I won’t post pictures here for decency’s sake.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Metal altar cross continually streaming/dripping myrrh. How do non-believers doubt this?

Redirecting...

Now this doesn’t disprove the specific miracle you’re citing or other proposed miracles, but there was a similar incident a few years ago. In Mumbai, India there was a statue of Jesus in a Catholic Church that was dripping water from its feet. Some people were collecting the dripping water believing it could cure disease.

Enter one Sanal Edamaruku. He had previously disproved an Indian mystic’s claims that he had the power to magically kill on live TV. Sanal investigated and found the dripping water was coming from a nearby bathroom along a support beam using capillary action. It then entered a nail hole in the statue and eventually started dripping out the bottom of the statue (its feet). People were drinking bathroom water.

Again, this doesn’t mean miracles don’t happen; but we know other claims that were thought miraculous were not. Unless some rigor is applied to these proposed miracles the more likely answer is probably far more mundane.

 

[MPat]

I’m confused by your example are you saying the claim is that someone is trying to convince themselves that they have a billion dollars?

Does it matter who is trying to persuade whom?

Why would that make any significant difference?

Maybe some con man wants to persuade someone for some reason, maybe a “practical joke” is involved… If you need that for your imagination to do, um, whatever you want from it.

After all the principle you are arguing for is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”, not “Extraordinary claims that extraordinary people make require extraordinary evidence.”.

Thus, given your principle, it is irrelevant who is making the claim. It is just a proposition that ended up under consideration in one way or another.

You know what I mean better than I do?

I was not talking about what you meant in writing that text, but about what the text you wrote means.

I get an impression that you do not understand that those are two different things.

By the way:

Again, you should not claim to have inside information about my mental processes — especially when your claim is quite incorrect.

You know what I mean better than I do? There you go again.

For now it has not been established that you have such a good knowledge of what you are thinking, nor that you are honest.

And yet you demand that I would trust you, and, therefore, accept those claims.

Naturally, I refuse. I intend to suspend my judgement on those claims, until they get proved or disproved.

And I would recommend you do do likewise with all such claims.

For that matter, that is something where you neither demonstrate that your claim is not “extraordinary”, nor provide “extraordinary evidence”.

Why not take the examples I gave, given that you asked me to provide examples?

Because it is shorter and keeps the same features (for you did not point to any significant difference).

No I didn’t. You asked me

— two examples where I would be sceptical of a claim without extraordinary evidence, despite my liking the claim.

And I point out that you considered the wrong meaning of “like”.

 

[PickyPicky]

Thank you for your reply. Your argument, whatever it was, seems to have disappeared up its own convolutions.

 

[Neithan]

Sorry, but I lost any respect for the man at that point.

How do you know what he said and what he meant?

You “lost any respect for the man” based on some hearsay, and because he doesn’t believe in time machines.

 

[Neithan]

Enter one […]

[…] Bishop Agnelo Gracias. “One can doubt if this has a supernatural cause. I have not seen the cross yet. It is quite possible that water dripping from it may have a natural explanation.” http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/12242667.cms

We can agree that superstitious claims are made — and disproved, not because some famous rationalist has to be flown in and arrive on scene to rescue the masses from priestcraft; but because the church authorities doubt these claims and invite investigation. It’s a red herring. This discussion is about miracles that have been investigated and found to have no natural cause.

 

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

Sorry, but I lost any respect for the man at that point.

How do you know what he said and what he meant?

You “lost any respect for the man” based on some hearsay, and because he doesn’t believe in time machines.

Let’s say that there was a time machine and you and I went back to Jerusalem and waited outside Jesus’ tomb. And I actually saw Him rise from the dead. And then I said that I still didn’t believe in the resurrection and despite the evidence of my own eyes I would remain an atheist.

How much respect would you have for my beliefs?

 

[Neithan]

How much respect would you have for my beliefs?

I certainly wouldn’t lose all respect for you. I’d be curious about your reasons for remaining an atheist, by which I presume you mean a metaphysical naturalist. Much more information needed.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

How much respect would you have for my beliefs?

I certainly wouldn’t lose all respect for you. I’d be curious about your reasons for remaining an atheist…

The reason would be that I would deny what I knew to be true.

 

[Dan123]

For now it has not been established that you have such a good knowledge of what you are thinking, nor that you are honest.

And how would you go about establishing that?

For that matter why should any of us believe you have good knowledge of what you’re thinking? Why should we believe you’re honest? It’s starting to sound like trolling.

 

[Pattylt]

He was in an interview and a correspondence with the article I read. It wasn’t just a single comment. Of course, the whole interview and correspondence could have been fake but I doubt WLC wouldn’t have retaliated or sued or something?

They were discussing the specific question of what would it take for you to abandon your faith. WLC’s final answer was nothing could. Even including the scenario the interviewer gave.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

For anyone interested, here is the original article by Matt Smith. The actual quote is about 20% down the page.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/page83.html

 

[Pattylt]

I think this is the same person…I couldn’t remember his name…but I don’t remember his article looking like this webpage. I wonder if he has made another?

But, yes…WLC would refuse his own eye witness as to the resurrection which makes me wonder, why does he then trust the Gospel witnesses?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It’s quite possible. There was another link I found last night from another article, but the link was dead.