N
Neithan
Guest
No, that’s a dead end, both ontologically and epistemologically. You get either [metaphysical] nihilism or solipsism.
- Status
N
Nononony
Guest
Like most people who don’t want to consider the legitimacy of a thing that goes against their established beliefs, they probably say it’s fake… or a scam… or otherwise dangerous in some way… or that the person who believes in such a thing has mental issues. Then there are others who probably don’t give it much thought because it’s not a focus of their life… and a good number probably don’t know they’re a thing… You know, normal ways!
R
Raxus
Guest
Study the history of the Catholic Faith in-depth and you might find out.
F
Freddy
Guest
I was hoping for a couple of brief explanatory sentences rather than a suggestion to study for a lifetime.Freddy:
Study the history of the Catholic Faith in-depth and you might find out.
Here’s my answer: God didn’t. The local priest wanted to increase his congregation.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Wow. This thread is still going.
The new element I noticed on a quick catch-up is the use of the term ‘hearsay’.
‘Hearsay’ is a term used in legal proceedings. Only some evidence is acceptable in a court. Evidence that you heard someone say something is not evidence that the something said actually happened.
It is not a scientific term. Science depends on what others have found, and therefore what they ‘say’. But ‘saying’ is not enough. They must also reveal their methodology and be open to investigation attempting to relocate their results.
And science is not seeking a ‘final answer’. It is seeking the best explanation at the time based on all the evidence.
Along the way some hypotheses and theories are discarded. This is the case with eucharistic ‘miracles’. There has yet to be a case in which the supernatural argument cannot be discarded in support of a natural explanation. Most often this is because the evidence provided is vague, based on non-expert observation, or easily explainable by more likely causes.
The new element I noticed on a quick catch-up is the use of the term ‘hearsay’.
‘Hearsay’ is a term used in legal proceedings. Only some evidence is acceptable in a court. Evidence that you heard someone say something is not evidence that the something said actually happened.
It is not a scientific term. Science depends on what others have found, and therefore what they ‘say’. But ‘saying’ is not enough. They must also reveal their methodology and be open to investigation attempting to relocate their results.
And science is not seeking a ‘final answer’. It is seeking the best explanation at the time based on all the evidence.
Along the way some hypotheses and theories are discarded. This is the case with eucharistic ‘miracles’. There has yet to be a case in which the supernatural argument cannot be discarded in support of a natural explanation. Most often this is because the evidence provided is vague, based on non-expert observation, or easily explainable by more likely causes.
N
Neithan
Guest
What is the natural explanation? [Other than “That didn’t actually happen”?]
The discussion shifted to a “legal” term because the scientific evidence was not accepted as evidence.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
If there was scientific evidence I would happily accept it. The problem is, there isn’t.
The usual natural explanation is fungus. Other possible natural explanations include fraud, presence of discolouring agents and testing error by those who claim in secret studies to have identified human cells.
Where such a range of natural explanations are possible there is no need to seek supernatural explanations.
The usual natural explanation is fungus. Other possible natural explanations include fraud, presence of discolouring agents and testing error by those who claim in secret studies to have identified human cells.
Where such a range of natural explanations are possible there is no need to seek supernatural explanations.
N
Neithan
Guest
So this is not a report of scientific evidence because…why? It’s not peer reviewed? It’s not a repeatable experiment?
Is it “incomplete” scientific evidence for some certain conclusion? That’s still scientific evidence of something — empirically observed and blind controlled.
You’re delving into your philosophical views on standards of evidence, which is, well, not scientific.
In other words, your only “natural explanation” is “It didn’t happen.”
Unfortunately there are authors now “selling” the story and that raises my own skeptical sense of what they’re publishing. Commercial motives make it extremely unlikely to meet any “approval” by the clergy. Still, to exclude all of these as fraud is incredible unless you’re already an ideological naturalist.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
If you really believe this is what I have said then I have expressed myself very badly.
I have pointed out that for all the phenomena claimed to be eucharistic miracles there are natural explanations. None of these natural explanations are ‘it didn’t happen’. For example ‘it was a fungus’ is a different statement from ‘there was no miracle’. That’s a conclusion that could be drawn from evidence of fungal activity. The conclusion is not the explanation.
As I have noted before there are claims of things which, if properly attested, would be difficult to explain naturally. An example is the transformation of bread into heart tissue. But the observation that it is heart tissue is not put forward in a way that allows for proper scrutiny. And of course there is the possibility of fraud or unintentional contamination.
The link you provide shows a document which appears to be a forensic scientist identifying heart tissue. Without a train of evidence security going back to the consecrated host said to have been the origin? of the sample this means nothing.
It also raises the issue of why the sample has not been subject to DNA testing.
F
Freddy
Guest
The letter says that he investigated the sample in the presence of two Australians in 2004 without having prior knowledge of the source at that time.
Yet he was asked to investigate it 5 years earlier:
'On October 5, 1999, in the presence of the Cardinal’s representatives, scientist Dr. Ricardo Castanon Gomez took a sample of the bloody fragment and sent it to New York for analysis.
Since Dr. Gomez did not want to prejudice the scientific committee who would be examining the tissue in New York, he did not reveal its source. A team of five scientists was assembled, including the famous cardiologist and forensic pathologist, Dr. Frederic Zugibe (author of many books on forensic pathology). Zugibe testified:
“The analyzed material is a fragment of the heart…etc" ’ The Eucharistic Miracle Overseen by Archbishop Bergoglio (Pope Francis) - Ascension Press Media
The letter to which you linked is not only not something that could be classed as evidence, it is obviously wrong and misrepresents what actually happened.
Last edited:
R
Raxus
Guest
I didn’t say one needed to study for a lifetime, but the fact that you’re only looking for a couple of sentences shows how deeply you actually care about the question. If you want thorough, decent answers, you go and study.
What point do you think a Catholic priest has for doing that?
F
Freddy
Guest
Would you think he’d prefer an empty church or a full one?Freddy:
I didn’t say one needed to study for a lifetime, but the fact that you’re only looking for a couple of sentences shows how deeply you actually care about the question. If you want thorough, decent answers, you go and study.
What point do you think a Catholic priest has for doing that?
R
Raxus
Guest
What would he personally gain from filling the pews in such a way?
F
Freddy
Guest
You are answering a question I didn’t ask by asking another. Do you have no idea why a full church is better than an empty one?Freddy:
What would he personally gain from filling the pews in such a way?
Last edited:
R
Raxus
Guest
I’m trying to make a point. You’re assuming that a priest did something to fulfill a goal; I’m suggesting that perhaps you don’t understand how a typical parish or cathedral works, or why priests are priests, if you think a priest would need to do that.
R
Raxus
Guest
On this specifically, certainly there are many reasons why it’s better to have a full church than an empty one, but it ultimately means little to nothing in terms of why a church exists. If only one soul comes to a parish to receive Communion or the other Sacraments, that parish is serving its purpose.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I think you’re placing way more trust in a priest than I would. There are wonderful, honest, holy priests in the church. And, there are some that want their church to be successful by any means possible…and a full church is more money and priests are sinners, too.
A priest might have seven nefarious reasons for wanting a miracle at his parish…money to skim, power seeking to name two. I know it’s uncomfortable to think a priest would pull off a fraud for material gain but I promise, it happens. And it would need to be ruled out in investigating a miracle.
A priest might have seven nefarious reasons for wanting a miracle at his parish…money to skim, power seeking to name two. I know it’s uncomfortable to think a priest would pull off a fraud for material gain but I promise, it happens. And it would need to be ruled out in investigating a miracle.
F
Freddy
Guest
Thanks for that. I agree. And see above for at least two ulterior motives for wanting it. Or…he could simply want to minister to more people within the church. Get them in through the door and then keep them there.Freddy:
On this specifically, certainly there are many reasons why it’s better to have a full church than an empty one…
Last edited:
R
Raxus
Guest
I’m speaking about the role that any given priest has in the Church, as a whole.
Priests don’t get more money for their own personal use if their congregations are larger, as far as I understand.
See above
Maybe, though there are much better ways to seek power in the first place than to become a priest to begin with.
If you can promise, can I see one source please?
One would assume this has already been done before a miracle is pronounced as legitimate.
P
Pattylt
Guest
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...or-stealing-from-church-idUSTRE52P5KC20090327
Do I really need to go on? There are plenty more!
Please understand, these are exceptions…most priests are not out to enrich their pockets but you questioning this is as silly as questioning priests being in sex scandals. Some people are just scum, priests included and some like to pull off fraud…for the money, for the fame or for the thrills of just doing it.
If miracle claims are investigated for the priest faking it, they rarely say or even explain how they ruled it out. They always seem much more interested in the miracle itself, not who would benefit.
- Status