How do atheists explain Eucharistic Miracles

[Dan123]

I find the question is a little moot. I don’t believe in atheists, which sometimes annoys my atheist friends. Matthew 6:5…“And when you pray…”. We all pray! I see atheism as coming from failures in religious institutions.

My experience is that a group of non-judgemental sincere Christian friends without expectations, a few glasses of wine, a good meal, and a sweet smile from a member of the opposite sex would turn the coldest atheist heart.

Perhaps they’re just annoyed you’re labeling them ‘cold’ without good reason?

Also ‘ply them with booze and women’ is an odd strategy to see recommended on this particular forum

 

[Freddy]

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?

That seems to be an example of rejecting personal testimony. And it’s not a miracle per se. I’m thinking of something that is claimed as a miracle but which you reject for whatever reason.

 

[jack63]

Also ‘ply them with booze and women’ is an odd strategy to see recommended on this particular forum

Ever read the Song of Solomon…it perhaps shows a different side to our faith…it is about a man and woman who are in love and soon to be intimate with each other.

Certainly drinking too much was accusation made against Jesus…I’ve always liked the scripture below from Matthew 11:19

the Son of Man came eating and drinking , and they say, “Look, a glutton and a drunkard a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds

There should be a great deal of joy as part of the Christian faith…not coldness and judgement.

 

[AlNg]

You only had to joke

I don’t consider the discussion about atheists and miracles to be a joke. Atheists do not believe in God, and I take that very seriously. IMHO, religion is not something to joke about.

 

[Neithan]

Good question. The accidents would be in the form of human tissue, since the substance is the whole body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Every Eucharist is supernatural, as the substance changes but appearance remains the same; so the extraordinary miracle in these cases is not the change of substance, but the additional change of appearance.

 

[MPat]

And it’s not a miracle per se.

True.

But I’d say it is close enough, and it does show some difficulties that are likely while answering your question.

That seems to be an example of rejecting personal testimony.

Is it?

Sure, if you say you are going to count something like that as “rejection” that is good enough to answer your question, that’s fine.

But was that a rejection of “personal testimony”? I’d say it was rather a rejection of “expert testimony”.

I’m thinking of something that is claimed as a miracle but which you reject for whatever reason.

And that it would count as “Christian”?

Well, the obvious problem is that the claims that would be reasonable to reject without suspending judgement rarely become sufficiently famous for one to hear about them, and to easily remember afterwards…

Perhaps the most easily researched case when the Church finds some miracle claims doubtful are Medjugorje apparitions. See, for example, The Conclusions of the Ruini Report on Medjugorje| National Catholic Register.

 

[Freddy]

Perhaps the most easily researched case when the Church finds some miracle claims doubtful are Medjugorje apparitions. See, for example, The Conclusions of the Ruini Report on Medjugorje| National Catholic Register.

Yes, that was more of what I was looking for. It’s quite interesting. Thank you for that.

 

[FiveLinden]

FiveLinden:

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?

None of that. It would merely convince me that a supernatural power was affecting the material world. If the miracle was closely associated with the practices of a particular religion that is where I would start in looking for further explanations.

You also asked for a peer review journal reference to my statement that ‘many unbelievers can think of miracles that would convince us’. This is a statement of fact, not requiring peer review. You only need to look at what unbelievers say. Try any skeptics site.

 

[QContinuum]

I offered a response upthread to the OP’s question. Never received any response. I guess it was overlooked, but many of the miracles being offered are beside the point to an atheist. Which I kindly pointed out. If anyone is interested in responding to my earlier points, I would be curious to read said response.

 

[FiveLinden]

I think one of the problems we unbelievers have here on CAF is that people suspect us of leading them into traps. So only a few are willing to engage. I think people like Dawkins who sometime act as if atheism was a belief system may have contributed to this. Please keep trying! I agrees with your post. But I would not have referred to unconsecrated bread as a ‘cracker’. That’s a standard protestant attack word.

 

[QContinuum]

Thank you, FiveLinden. I would just clarify I referred to the Catholic consecrated item as the “Eucharist.” The unconsecrated ones I referred to as “crackers.” I purposely made the distinction in deference to Catholics here. My understanding is that to Catholics, in those churches like my old one, the Episcopal Church, what we partook of what always and only a cracker.

 

[MPat]

None of that.

Precisely.

Why would you do otherwise?

If you would have changed your mind because of getting an impressive piece of evidence, especially if it was presented to you after you demanded it, you would certainly conclude that the main reason why you were wrong was not having that piece of evidence. And, therefore, that everything with you is at least mostly right.

But… What’s the point?

Why would we want that?

You would only lose a chance to improve, and might actually decrease your chances to avoid Hell.

“No pain, no gain.”

You also asked for a peer review journal reference to my statement that ‘many unbelievers can think of miracles that would convince us’. This is a statement of fact, not requiring peer review. You only need to look at what unbelievers say. Try any skeptics site.

Oh, the fact that they can say something was not in question.

But the claim that, if those requirements were met, you (and other atheists) really would believe, is not something confirmed so easily.

And you seem to believe that without peer reviewed articles. And you have yet to explain, why.

For that matter, you did not really explain even the more simple case. “This is a statement of fact, not requiring peer review.” - why? What is the criterion by which you decide if you need a peer reviewed article?

I think one of the problems we unbelievers have here on CAF is that people suspect us of leading them into traps. So only a few are willing to engage.

You wrote that in the post that has number 143 in this thread. Is that because “only a few are willing to engage”?

I’d say it should be pretty obvious that this explanation is rather inadequate. There has to be something else, something with much greater importance.

For that matter, do you think you put more or less effort in investigation of miracles compared to this investigation…?

I offered a response upthread to the OP’s question. Never received any response. I guess it was overlooked, but many of the miracles being offered are beside the point to an atheist. Which I kindly pointed out. If anyone is interested in responding to my earlier points, I would be curious to read said response.

And what can we respond?

So, you said that (more or less) you are not interested. Well, I suppose that’s mostly true.

But it does not lead to a discussion, while (as you can see) an obviously shaky claim like “I would believe if [something].” can lead to asking why that claim is being believed without that “something”.

However, I do find it somewhat interesting that you still found this subject sufficiently interesting to want a response.

Have you considered, why you want a response, given that you say you are not interested in such miracles?

 

[FiveLinden]

Again I am not sure I understand your points. But to reiterate:

1. atheists don’t have a common set of beliefs, any more than people who don’t believe in the Loch Ness monster have a common set of beliefs.
2. I, and many other unbelievers, are open to demonstrations of the existence of the supernatural.
3. In response to the regular taunt from believers that we are being disingenuous and that ‘nothing would convince us’, I, and some others, say we are happy to be convinced in the same way we are convinced about other things.
4. Peer review is a flawed but very useful system to arrive at most likely conclusions from observations. It is one of the things we trust every day when we, for example, drive over bridges built to standards developed through peer review. We don’t ‘believe in’ peer review. We know it is just a way of people talking to each other.

 

[QContinuum]

So, you said that (more or less) you are not interested. Well, I suppose that’s mostly true.

I believe I said a great deal more. And none of those statements included “I am not interested.” The initial question is “How do atheists explain Eucharistic Miracles?” My response was itself a question for further understanding. “Why would we?” What exactly about these miracles requires a response from us? That’s what I don’t understand.

But it does not lead to a discussion, while (as you can see) an obviously shaky claim like “I would believe if [something].” can lead to asking why that claim is being believed without that “something”.

A question was asked, and I responded sincerely, from my perspective and with a question of my own. That no one responded is not due to my lack of interest; rather, no one seemed interested enough to respond to what I posted.

However, I do find it somewhat interesting that you still found this subject sufficiently interesting to want a response.

Have you considered, why you want a response, given that you say you are not interested in such miracles?

It is interesting because a question was posed directly to me, an atheist, along with other non-believers. I gave a thoughtful response, and when I came back to follow-up, am now being told that my response was not worth discussion (fair enough), and my motives for follow-up are being read as interest in miracles.

I’m interested in thoughtful dialogue and exchange of ideas. That’s my reason for participating in any threads on CAF.

 

[MPat]

atheists don’t have a common set of beliefs, any more than people who don’t believe in the Loch Ness monster have a common set of beliefs.

Just because I disagree does not mean that this claim is somehow relevant.

Right now I concentrate on one specific atheist - you.

Peer review is a flawed but very useful system to arrive at most likely conclusions from observations. It is one of the things we trust every day when we, for example, drive over bridges built to standards developed through peer review.

Well, I suppose we could conclude that you have no direct experience of peer review and bridge building. But far more importantly, that is also irrelevant. Right now the important part about peer review is that you demand it for some claims, and not for others.

And I am asking: what is the difference between those claims? How do you know when to demand a peer reviewed paper?

I, and many other unbelievers, are open to demonstrations of the existence of the supernatural.

In response to the regular taunt from believers that we are being disingenuous and that ‘nothing would convince us’, I, and some others, say we are happy to be convinced in the same way we are convinced about other things.

Yes, you (and many other atheists) make such claims. And you expect us to just believe you?

Why should we?

Why shouldn’t we demand peer reviewed articles instead?

After all, you demand those (and more) for some claims, and can’t provide any criterion for telling those cases apart.

And it has not been established that you (or, for that matter, any other atheist) are trustworthy (so perfectly honest, competent etc., that this would rule out both mistake and lying).

I believe I said a great deal more. And none of those statements included “I am not interested.”

Sure, you said more. But I get an impression that this is a pretty fair summary, given that it is just four words long.

A question was asked, and I responded sincerely, from my perspective and with a question of my own. That no one responded is not due to my lack of interest; rather, no one seemed interested enough to respond to what I posted.

Yes, because your answer had no obvious “hook” for further discussion. And to some extent, because your “competitors” provided such “hooks”.

and my motives for follow-up are being read as interest in miracles.

Well, I did ask a question.

I’m interested in thoughtful dialogue and exchange of ideas. That’s my reason for participating in any threads on CAF.

I suppose that is close enough for a reason to want a reply.

 

[Dan123]

How do you know when to demand a peer reviewed paper?

I’d say more generally this fits into the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. This is how we handle almost ever claim in our lives. Scientific claims about the world are typically backed up by peer reviewed papers, as systemically that is the best system we’ve found for discerning truth from non-truth when it comes to those types of claims. But as a general rule the more a claim differs from our range of normal human experiences the more evidence we’ll tend to want, it’s a spectrum. The example being if I tell you I have a dog as a pet, you’d likely believe me, people have dogs as pets and it’s pretty common. If I tell you I have an elephant as a pet you may want photos or to see the elephant, or have questions about how much food it eats and such, because this differs heavily from our range of expected behavior.

Yes, you (and many other atheists) make such claims. And you expect us to just believe you?

You have no other choice really. When someone is making a claim about their own thoughts, believing them is simply a sign of respect. The same respect expected to be shown to believers. There is no peer review process for one’s own thoughts, I guess therapy might be sort of that but that’s the closest analogy I can come up with.

And it has not been established that you (or, for that matter, any other atheist) are trustworthy (so perfectly honest, competent etc., that this would rule out both mistake and lying).

Why did you say ‘any other atheist’ instead of ‘any other person’?

 

[QContinuum]

Sure, you said more. But I get an impression that this is a pretty fair summary, given that it is just four words long.

I already pointed out my statements did not include “I am not interested.” That is your false interpretation of my post. Obviously, or I would not have asked for clarification both in the post, and in my follow-up.

Yes, because your answer had no obvious “hook” for further discussion. And to some extent, because your “competitors” provided such “hooks”.

Competitors? If you are speaking of FiveLinden, that is an amusing, but odd thought. My follow-up post was not even aimed at you specifically, but really anyone on this thread who’ve put forward miracles for examination. If you are busy with another conversation, just say so. I’ll take the lack of interest in my post as both sides having explained their position and finding nothing else with which to engage.

 

[FiveLinden]

I’ll take the lack of interest in my post as both sides having explained their position and finding nothing else with which to engage.

There is much wisdom here Q…

 

[MPat]

I’d say more generally this fits into the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

And, of course, “extraordinary claims” are “claims I do not like”, while “extraordinary evidence” is “any evidence that is not available”.

Yes, with such clarification I would agree that this is the real explanation. It just does not describe a reasonable course of action.

And let’s face it: the ones who like that saying do not have any competing explanation of difference between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” ready.

And they were challenged on this point so many times, that if it was possible to think of something sounding more reasonable, someone would have thought of that, and the rest would have copied that explanation.

You have no other choice really.

Watch and be amazed by my powers of mistrusting!

When someone is making a claim about their own thoughts, believing them is simply a sign of respect.

Showing such fake “respect” would be almost suicidal.

It would mean one has to believe promises of all politicians and con artists (promises are obviously supposed to be backed by “their own thoughts”).

Usually only they and atheists demand such “respect” (and most politicians and con artists have enough sense to know that actually making such a demand is going to backfire, and thus try not to make it explicitly).

Why did you say ‘any other atheist’ instead of ‘any other person’?

Because we were talking about claims by atheists. For that matter, the rest of humanity tends not to make such claims…

I already pointed out my statements did not include “I am not interested.” That is your false interpretation of my post. Obviously, or I would not have asked for clarification both in the post, and in my follow-up.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just provide the better summary, still keeping it in four words…?

Competitors? If you are speaking of FiveLinden, that is an amusing, but odd thought.

No, I meant all the atheists in this thread.

And yes, there is a real sense in which you are competitors: people who would be willing to respond have limited time and attention (there’s also the character limit).

There is a sense in which even the points made in the same post compete among themselves.

 

[Freddy]

Dan123:

I’d say more generally this fits into the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

And, of course, “extraordinary claims” are “claims I do not like”, while “extraordinary evidence” is “any evidence that is not available”.

Yes, with such clarification I would agree that this is the real explanation. It just does not describe a reasonable course of action.

And let’s face it: the ones who like that saying do not have any competing explanation of difference between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” ready.

And they were challenged on this point so many times, that if it was possible to think of something sounding more reasonable, someone would have thought of that, and the rest would have copied that explanation.

Really, I think you are arguing for the sake of it. No reasonable person could fail to understand the difference between an extraordinary claim and a run-of-the-mill one.