How do atheists explain Eucharistic Miracles

[MPat]

Come on. Freddy’s joke was great. At least have a chuckle or look up the plant under which you die if you sit beneath it for ten minutes

Yes, sitting under a water lily can have such an effect.

But then, this joke illustrates how “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is useless, if “extraordinary claims” are to be detected “instinctively”.

A claim might have been made to look “instinctively extraordinary”, but it is easy to see that a rather unimpressive “Nymphaeaceae is a family of flowering plants, commonly called water lilies.” in Wikipedia (for all its unreliability) is perfectly sufficient additional evidence.

 

[Frankie65]

Dear Patty. I signed in just for a bit because of your posts. One has a choice to make at a t junction, left or right.
At the t junction let’s say there is a depot containing a massive amount of evidence for eucharistic miracles.
Independent labs.
Non believer scientists.
Unknown material sampling.
Many instances.
All the other evidence Catholics have presented above.

Resulting in reports:
Living cells
Of heart muscle
Of a tortured individual
AB blood

So the left turn says, despite overwhelming evidence, it is not true, it can’t be, I will not believe, I cannot believe , I will dismiss it all

The right turn says, it sounds impossible, but there is overwhelming evidence, so I must look into it further…I will accept the possibility I am looking at something which is really true…where can I find out more?..

The Eucharistic Miracle and the Catholics here presenting evidence is our Lord standing right in front of you waving his hands. I am! Here is proof! I am giving it to you!

It is his present directly to you

 

[ReaderT]

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

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=710525929408600

 

[Pattylt]

Dear Patty. I signed in just for a bit because of your posts.

That’s sweet of you, thank you!

The problem you are presenting isn’t one I’ve faced, however. I’ve never seen these miracles, I’ve just read about them. That seems an odd way for Jesus to be calling me? I’ve also read the issues with the miracles. I don’t rule them out, I just can’t rule them in.

I’m very hesitant to just accept the claims of those with a vested interest in them being miracles and none outside the faith accept them. They very obviously seem to be for the believers, not for the doubters. Protestants don’t accept Eucharistic miracles either. That makes me stop and think…I can’t help it, it’s just too odd a coincidence. Ami being too skeptical? Probably. I can’t help it though. I know I can be fooled too easily so I probably react in being too skeptical.

If this is really Jesus trying to get my attention, He has a strange way of showing it to an agnostic…one that could never believe in Jesus to begin with, though I tried. To someone that is very leery of miracles, it needs to be one that personally kicks them in the teeth, so to speak. I realize it frustrates believers. I’m sorry it does. We just seem to have a higher bs detection meter in our brains and we can’t help it! (I’m not calling Eucharistic miracles bs by the way…just as a general statement). Part of it is probabilities as well…when hundreds have been debunked what’s the chance that this one is real? Pretty low.

As I’ve said, I won’t completely discount a miracle from ever happening. I hope I’m not so closed minded. I just haven’t witnessed one ever in my life and it would take one smacking me up side the head to get through my thick skull. :hugs:

 

[Pattylt]

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

Redirecting...

I get a video unavailable message…sorry…

Ok, found it! Has it been investigated or am I supposed to just accept this as a miracle without looking into it? That seems to be my problem…I find this very curious…but miraculous? How is a cross dripping liquid a miracle?

 

[ReaderT]

That seems to be my problem…I find this very curious…but miraculous? How is a cross dripping liquid a miracle?

This occasionally happens with icons or crosses in Orthodoxy: they supernaturally stream myrrh.

The amount of liquid in the basin is more than can be stored in some “secret compartment” in the cross

Ok, found it! Has it been investigated or am I supposed to just accept this as a miracle without looking into it?

You could also say: “Am I supposed to just assume that this isn’t a miracle?”

 

[MPat]

Ok, found it! Has it been investigated or am I supposed to just accept this as a miracle without looking into it?

You have several reasonable options. You can suspend judgement for now. You can investigate.

The one unreasonable option is the one you are tempted to do: to just dismiss the evidence, and adopt the conclusion supported by no available evidence.

That is certainly far less reasonable than to accept the miracle basing the decision on all evidence you currently have.

And, by the way, while it is reasonable to suspend the judgement, it would be unreasonable to forget that you did so right away.

It is not reasonable to let atheism keep high certainty with many miracle claims for which you have to suspend judgement.

After all, a tiniest of miracles (and even of “miracles” done by evil spirits) has to be fatal to atheism.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m suspending judgment for now. I looked into these types of miracles but there isn’t a lot of information on them. It seems some have been found to be fake. It also seems to be a unique occurrence with the Orthodox Church and they don’t allow them to be investigated. So, I’ll withhold my opinion for now as I don’t know what to think other than it’s curious and kinda cool!

 

[Dan123]

Yes, sitting under a water lily can have such an effect.

But then, this joke illustrates how “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is useless, if “extraordinary claims” are to be detected “instinctively”.

this isn’t so much an extraordinary claim as much as word play. And the evidence is easily provided.

But to loop things back to the topic of the discussion, since you don’t think we can identify what an extraordinary claim is how can one make a claim that an event is a miracle?

 

[Dan123]

It also seems to be a unique occurrence with the Orthodox Church and they don’t allow them to be investigated

Ah interesting, was looking for information myself about investigations into them and found this: Witnessing Religious Trickery In America's Heartland by Ken Taubert (December 1995) - Freedom From Religion Foundation which includes a line…

“No scientific study of what could be causing the oil to seep from the painting is going to be conducted. For us, scientists are wonderful people, but their analysis will not change our faith.”

 

[ReaderT]

Ah interesting, was looking for information myself about investigations into them and found this: https://ffrf.org/legal/item/16849-witnessing-religious-trickery-in-americas-heartland which includes a line…

It also includes this line:

At the end of the line, a priest, (I think he must be a priest, because he has a funny looking hat on, and is wearing a black dress) is evidently anointing people on the forehead, and even blessing rosary beads and such.

We don’t have rosary beads. That’s a Catholic thing, not Orthodox. Anyone with a smidge of background information would’ve known that.

 

[Pattylt]

I’ve found a few articles where investigation was done…some secretly.

First of all, what weeps is dependent upon the religion. Greek Orthodox tend to have weeping icons, Catholics tend to have weeping Mary’s. Russian weeping tends to be oil, some scented, some not. Catholic ones tend to be tears or blood (in one case, the same DNA of the Priest) And Orthodox are liquid myrrh.

The weeping Madonna that was debunked was found to be made of a porous plaster with a ceramic coating and hollow in the center. There were little scratches through the ceramic which allowed the capillary action of the porous plaster to absorb the tears and flowed out of the only escape route where the ceramic was scratched.

This doesn’t discount all of them as most are not allowed to be examined. But, I hope you can at least understand why skepticism exists for these. I haven’t found one yet that was allowed to be examined and no known cause was found. So, there may be some out there but why the hesitation to confirm the miraculous nature?

These things just set off my inner skeptical alarms and I can’t help it. The faithful tend to believe first and will reluctantly give up when proved false. Skeptics approach it skeptically first and await the investigation. Only each person can decide which approach is best.

 

[Freddy]

These things just set off my inner skeptical alarms and I can’t help it.

This has me completely bemused: ‘…but their analysis will not change our faith’.

Would a healthy dose of skepticism reduce someone’s faith? Does anyone need a weeping icon to strengthen their faith? It seems to me to devalue it.

I came across a comment by an YEC proponent recently where he said that even if it could proved to him beyond any doubt that the world was billions of years old then he would still hold to his YEC beliefs. Because that what his faith compelled him to do.

It seems that as well as faith being capable of moving mountains, it can also convince people that the mountains are only a few thousand years old.

 

[Pattylt]

I remember William Lane Craig stating that even if he went into a time machine and witnessed Jesus never leaving the grave, he would still believe in the Ressurection. He stated he would assume his mind played a trick on him and that Jesus still walked out and his mind blanked out that part. I’m not sure what kind of belief one has that even his own eye witness wouldn’t believe it. Even if he saw the body still there!

Sorry, but I lost any respect for the man at that point. I admire strong faith but not the kind that would deny the reality in front of him. That, to me, borders on delusion.

I’ve heard Christians many times ask an atheist what it would take to believe but when asked what would it take for a Christian to disbelieve, most agree that seeing the body still in the tomb would do it. Am I wrong?

 

[AlNg]

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

Does this then prove that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one, true Church?

 

[PickyPicky]

Or, in other words, you do not like them

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

For that just is an explanation why you do not like those claims.

Or do you imagine you are going to like claims that do not fit your beliefs?

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.

You did not offer any such example

OK.

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.

And another.

A polling company reports that 70% of British voters intend voting Liberal Democrat at the next election. That runs counter to our current understanding of political opinion and behaviour. An extraordinary claim, and one I would very much like to see proved. Do I just believe it? Certainly not. I would require extraordinarily convincing evidence.

OK?

 

[PickyPicky]

But to loop things back to the topic of the discussion, since you don’t think we can identify what an extraordinary claim is how can one make a claim that an event is a miracle?

This is the complete answer to @MPat’s difficultly in accepting the “extraordinary” discussion. A miracle is not a miracle if it is not an extraordinary event. How else would it be identified as a miracle?

 

[ReaderT]

Does this then prove that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one, true Church?

Well, it definitely shows that God’s at work in the EOC! :+1:t2:

I’m not sure what kind of belief one has that even his own eye witness wouldn’t believe it. Even if he saw the body still there!

I often wonder the same about doubters who see an unembalmed body incorrupt after 400 years - something that has never been repeated, not even today with advanced embalming techniques. No one seems to have commented on that yet

I actually did some research on this: even today with modern techniques, we can’t stop the air around the body from carrying mold spores. So even if they look nice for the funeral, after 6 months the body is covered with black mold spots (like you see on food), and after 3 years it’s a pile of rotting flesh.

But, I hope you can at least understand why skepticism exists for these. I haven’t found one yet that was allowed to be examined and no known cause was found. So, there may be some out there but why the hesitation to confirm the miraculous nature?

The only reason I can think of why they don’t often allow examination is because the examination often destroys the icon/cross/relic. For example, I didn’t understand when Catholics let scientists take blood from the shroud of Turin and test it in a lab, thus potentially destroying Jesus’ blood.

 

[Dan123]

For example, I didn’t understand when Catholics let scientists take blood from the shroud of Turin and test it in a lab, thus potentially destroying Jesus’ blood.

Would you like to re-admit the vast number of false relics that have been peddled throughout history as possibly authentic, dismissing the results of any scientific examination that was done?

God created the universe which contains all the laws science attempts to discover. Why wouldn’t such relics stand up to investigation?

 

[ReaderT]

Would you like to re-admit the vast number of false relics that have been peddled throughout history as possibly authentic, dismissing the results of any scientific examination that was done?

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.

God created the universe which contains all the laws science attempts to discover. Why wouldn’t such relics stand up to investigation?

That would be great - They can start with the relics of St. Alexander of Svir, which I have mentioned 4 times in this thread now, and nobody has commented on it. He died in 1533 (almost 500 years ago - half a millenium ago) and it looks like he’s just come in from some gardening:

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

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

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

There is no scientific explanation for this.

There are no embalming methods today (let alone 500 years ago!) that can preserve a body this well.