How do atheists explain Eucharistic Miracles

[MPat]

i thought it was you who brought up the question of PhD and Nobel Prizewinners?

I asked a question about who are those “the best and most thoughtful people” you were talking about:

How do you know that you have identified “the best and most thoughtful people” correctly?

Presumably, the answer will also indicate who are those people, in your opinion, - just about everyone? Just about everyone with PhD? Just about everyone famous? Just about every Nobel Prize winner?

You answered:

Yes. It would be. Because there are nobel prize winners who are Muslims and there are Nobel prize winners who are Jews. Both are reasonable and yet each has come to a different decision as to which religion to adapt.

So, now the claim that all Nobel Prize winners are reasonable is yours.

And I ask how you can know that they are.

For it looks like your views concerning abilities of human reason rule the possibility of knowing that out.

Of course, you can say that you misspoke or changed your mind, and give your new or clarified position on who those “the best and most thoughtful people” are.

Take a look at the question of capital punishment. Can you explain why it is fake to say that some favor it while others do not?

But the question is not about “some”.

The question is specifically about the ones whose reason is not impeded. The ones who are honest, competent, knowledgeable, reasonable etc. As you put it, “the best and most thoughtful people”.

And you have to find one group of people who are known to be like that (in a relevant way), but disagree (on a relevant question).

And to explain how you can know that it really is so, assuming your beliefs about abilities of human reason are correct.

For I think it is pretty clear that finding such a group of people is impossible. But that’s the way you chose to argue, thus feel free to try.

And when you’ll fail, feel free to admit that your belief that people with unimpeded reason disagree is not true knowledge.

 

[Neithan]

regularly and insignificantly

OK then I misunderstood. The explanation is far easier however, so I feel like maybe I’m still misunderstanding your point. Insignificant interruptions for the benefit of free-willed creatures is consonant with a benevolent creator. So would irregular or unique and significant interruptions. Either case is also congruent with divine kenosis.

 

[AlNg]

Presumably, the answer will also indicate who are those people, in your opinion, - just about everyone? Just about everyone with PhD? Just about everyone famous? Just about every Nobel Prize winner?

, now the claim that all Nobel Prize winners are reasonable is yours.

You brought up the question of Nobel Prize winners.

The question is specifically about the ones whose reason is not impeded. The ones who are honest, competent, knowledgeable, reasonable etc.

Which ones would that be:
those who favor capital punishment
or
those who oppose it?

we can know that this your “knowledge” about abilities of human reason is fake.

Why is it fake to say that some oppose capital punishment and others favor it? BTW, which is the more reasonable position?

 

[Neithan]

“regularly and significantly interrupting that process”

No, not at all. Answered prayer is, far and away, providential and not miraculous.

 

[Neithan]

What’s the difference?

Whether something has no natural explanation or if it is in the course of nature. Healing may be natural and an answer to prayer (providence) or it may be an extraordinary wonder in rare cases (miracle).

 

[MPat]

You brought up the question of Nobel Prize winners.

Can you explain why that would be relevant?

Am I to understand that you do not see the answers you give to the questions as “yours”?

That would be a bit more dishonest than I expected.

Which ones would that be:
those who favor capital punishment
or
those who oppose it?

That is irrelevant to the question at hand.

You claim to know that “reasonable (etc.) people” disagree. It is not necessary to know anything about the question as such to find out that you can’t know that.

Thus, um, red herring noted.

Not a good sign, if you think you need them…

Why is it fake to say that some oppose capital punishment and others favor it? BTW, which is the more reasonable position?

I have already pointed out:

But the question is not about “some”.

The question is specifically about the ones whose reason is not impeded. The ones who are honest, competent, knowledgeable, reasonable etc. As you put it, “the best and most thoughtful people”.

This same answer works now too.

Your “evasive action” is getting repetitive…

 

[AlNg]

Can you explain why that would be relevant?

Because it is in response to your question.

Just about everyone with PhD? Just about everyone famous? Just about every Nobel Prize winner?

Your “evasive action”

There is nothing evasive at all. Here is your specific question:

Do you believe that human reason can be relied to reach truth, knowledge in other cases?

I gave a specific answer and specific examples. If you forgot answer to this question, I give it again:
Sometimes yes; other times no.

 

[Freddy]

Sometimes it is reasonable to suspend judgement. And sometimes (for example, when one has a deadline to make a decision, and passing the deadline will automatically result in one of the choices) that is not reasonable (perhaps even impossible), it is reasonable to just guess.

So are there any that you have rejected?

 

[MPat]

Because it is in response to your question.

Bad technique.

You should have tried saying “Because I say so!”.

That would be just as much a non-response as this one, but then you would be able to pretend that you were just joking.

And then you could easily “save face”.

Of course, it would be even better if you would be interested in truth and not in “saving face”, for then you would have achieved both (as if illustrating gospel reading for this Sunday - Matthew 16:25 - in a tiny way)…

But then you probably wouldn’t have ended up arguing that human reason usually can’t be relied to reach truth in the first place…

So are there any that you have rejected?

Is this question supposed to be relevant in some way?

 

[Freddy]

AlNg:

Because it is in response to your question.

Bad technique.

You should have tried saying “Because I say so!”.

That would be just as much a non-response as this one, but then you would be able to pretend that you were just joking.

And then you could easily “save face”.

Of course, it would be even better if you would be interested in truth and not in “saving face”, for then you would have achieved both (as if illustrating gospel reading for this Sunday - Matthew 16:25 - in a tiny way)…

But then you probably wouldn’t have ended up arguing that human reason usually can’t be relied to reach truth in the first place…

So are there any that you have rejected?

Is this question supposed to be relevant in some way?

Yes. I’d like to know on what basis you might have rejected a potential miracle. I want to find some common ground.

 

[AlNg]

Bad technique.

I suppose that you will find some reasonable people saying that it is a bad technique to respond to your questions. You asked the question about PhD’s and Nobel Prize winners. Now you claim it is a bad technique to respond to your question about them?

you probably wouldn’t have ended up arguing that human reason usually can’t be relied to reach truth in the first place…

No. As I said already: Sometimes yes, other times no. You have to give us the specific cases so that we can respond precisely on a case by case basis.

 

[Neithan]

Something with a natural explanation and something with no natural explanation is a distinction without difference?

 

[Neithan]

God ordered healing is not a “natural” explanation.

God sustains the natural order, so providence is not either/or but both divine and natural. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/providence

Otherwise, what then is a healing miracle?

No natural explanation.

MIRACLE Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com

 

[Neithan]

Many (most?) alleged Eucharistic miracles turn out to be a kind of mold. Tested and rejected. I was going to link to an atheist blogger who claims that even the approved miracles (tested and found to be human tissue) are mold, just, because, they must be mold! But the “friendlyatheist” writes in a tone and with language that is aggressively not friendly. For ideological reasons, these people simply cannot accept that a piece of wheat bread became human heart tissue, regardless of empirical reports.

 

[FiveLinden]

Here is my suggestion for getting us non-believers on board for the next apparent miracle.

1. Immediately isolate the substance said to have been the subject of miraculous change in a way that absolutely precludes the possibility of fraud or contamination. Private security empowered to report independently on their actions would be a minimum.
2. Obtained detailed statements from anyone who had, or could have had, access to the substance. Establish with certainly whether anyone else could have had access. These statements should be given on oath or affirmation and those making them subject to civil penalties if found to be false. Ensure these statements are taken independently and recorded to a forensic standard. Eliminate all possibility of cross-contamination of statements by contact between witnesses or record all such contact.
3. Subject the substance involved to appropriate testing by appropriately qualified scientists with extra procedure sin place to guard against fraud or deceit. Supervision by those skilled in deceit such as performance magicians would assist scientific oversight. Identify whether any of the original substance is still present and of so in what proportions. Identify the presence or confirm the absence of molds, fungii and other organisms associated with decay or generation of colour change.
4. Publish the results in a peer review journal.
5. Identify the pathway from the original substance to the substance said to have changed and assess again the possibility that a substitution through ordinary means has taken place.

Then I’d be open to considering a miraculous change, provided all the steps noted above were answered in line with coming to such a hypothesis.

 

[ioannes_pius]

It is not miracles that incline a realist towards faith. The true realist, if he is not a believer, will invariably find within himself the strength and the ability not to believe in miracles either, and if a miracle stands before him as an incontrovertible fact, he will sooner disbelieve his senses than admit that fact. And even if he does admit it, it will be as a fact of nature, but one that until now has been obscure to him.

(Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, p. 39)

 

[FiveLinden]

It is not miracles that incline a realist towards faith. The true realist, if he is not a believer, will invariably find within himself the strength and the ability not to believe in miracles either, and if a miracle stands before him as an incontrovertible fact, he will sooner disbelieve his senses than admit that fact. And even if he does admit it, it will be as a fact of nature, but one that until now has been obscure to him.

I do not agree with this. I, and many unbelievers, can think of miracles that would convince us. Virtually any of the miracles of the New Testament would do so. The problem is that modern ‘miracles’ do not appear miraculous. A corpse does not decompose, much? Show me a non-decomposed corpse buried at sea. A miraculous cure? Show me a re-grown head.

So, as Dostoyevsky implies, faith is needed to believe in a miracle. Then why would God perform them, as no one comes to believe as a result? And why would the faith of the faithful be increased by ‘miracles’ that could have natural explanations? Sure;y, like us, believers would be impressed only by something that could not have a natural origin?

 

[PickyPicky]

For ideological reasons, these people simply cannot accept that a piece of wheat bread became human heart tissue, regardless of empirical reports

I’m not familiar with the circumstances of this miracle, but if it is a Eucharistic miracle, how does it come about that the human tissue did not have the accidents of bread?

 

[ReaderT]

Another incorrupt saint I just found out about: Saint Alexander of Svir.

Lived 1440 -1533. He should’ve totally returned to dust 400 years ago but is still very much intact. You can even see the wrinkles on his hands:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Looks like he just came in from some light gardening…

 

[MPat]

You asked the question about PhD’s and Nobel Prize winners. Now you claim it is a bad technique to respond to your question about them?

No, I say it is bad technique to avoid facing the foolishness of your beliefs while taking yourself far too seriously.

You only had to joke, and you would have been able to escape from this discussion while creating impression that you might have had some reasonable answer, and merely liked the joke more.

Yes. I’d like to know on what basis you might have rejected a potential miracle. I want to find some common ground.

That might indicate that is a good question for a separate thread, but I’m asking why it fits in this one.

But, anyway, if you want to ask such question, you should clarify what counts as “accepting” and “rejecting”. After all, I listed 7 options. And it is possible to rule out one or two, and to suspend judgement on the rest of them.

Thus, for example, one of members of this forum has claimed that he has dealt with good and evil spirits. And, given the amount of nonsense in his arguments, I find him dealing with evil spirits very likely, but dealing with good spirits highly unlikely. Would you count that as “accepting” or as “rejecting” the claim?

Here is my suggestion for getting us non-believers on board for the next apparent miracle.

Um, what would be the point?

Let’s say that you get all that. Then what?

Would that inspire gratefulness to God? Willingness to worship Him? Contrition? Seeing yourself as a great sinner, fool, evil man unworthy of God’s mercy, but needing it badly?

Then I’d be open to considering a miraculous change, provided all the steps noted above were answered in line with coming to such a hypothesis.

I, and many unbelievers, can think of miracles that would convince us.

So, any peer reviewed articles to support those claims?

Or do you believe them without such articles, and expect us to believe without them?

In such case, what makes you think demanding peer reviewed articles is reasonable in one case, but not in the other?