Science debunking miracles?

[PazzoGrande]

Sceptics say that the miracles we use as evidence for beatifications and canonisations are not really miracles, but due to either spontaneous remission or some other medical reason as of yet unknown. What would be the Church’s response to that?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Sceptics say that the miracles we use as evidence for beatifications and canonisations are not really miracles, but due to either spontaneous remission or some other medical reason as of yet unknown.

Why wouldn’t wonders be worked that way?

 

[MaryLouItalia]

I know that the church is deadly serious when she must recognize a ‘miracle’. The last month I’ve had the chance to see a documentary in the Italian public television about Lourdes, and naturally they talked about miracles. In 150 years the church and the medical commission, they acknowledge no more than 63 miracles and instead, the ‘miracles’ happened, would be thousands. If we talk about the miracles “we use as evidence for beatifications and canonisations”, they are investigated very seriously by doctors and clergy, and often it takes several years before arriving at a conclusion.
A miracle it’s a wonderful thing, another gift of Our Lord, and if it happen Amen, if not there’s another Amen.

Luke 12:31 No; set your hearts on his kingdom, and these other things will be given you as well. NJB

 

[andremiguel]

Sceptics say that the miracles we use as evidence for beatifications and canonisations are not really miracles, but due to either spontaneous remission or some other medical reason as of yet unknown. What would be the Church’s response to that?

The Church has got all the proofs for miracles. It is kept in archives. The skeptics can go there to the Vatican and consult the archives or to Lourdes or to Fatima.
I think that it is up to the skeptics to prove that all (that is strong, boy!) miracles are remissions. It is easy just to blow the horn and prove nothing and then ask the others to prove what is proven.
Why are the skeptics allowed to say sentences without proof and ask us to accept that, just because they said, then it is true !!!
I mean, skeptics saying any sentence and that be true is a true miracle !!! Even scientists had to prove their assertions. Exempting skeptics from proving what they say makes them living gods.

 

[Aeden]

I always laugh inside when somebody tries to disprove God’s power or existence by demonstrating the method he used for his miracles!

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I always laugh inside when somebody tries to disprove God’s power or existence by demonstrating the method he used for his miracles!

This

 

[Equites_Christi]

Pinning everything which is unexplainable on a “medical reason yet unknown” is something I like to call Science of the Gaps

 

[ManOnFire]

Scientists EXPECT us to believe that the Big Bang arose spontaneously, naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) from absolutely nothing. There is no science to support this belief, yet that’s what they want us to believe, in the name of science.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

When one looks at the miracles that are recognized in the canonization of saints, the process is so exacting that there are probably many that are actual miracles, but still don’t meet the rigorous standards for proof for the Church. The best medical experts (those who sit on the boards that certify specialists, the heads of medical colleges, etc.) are the ones who review them. Many are not Catholics or Christians or even believers.

Any cure that could occur as the result of organic causes, or through psychological reasons are not even considered, so cures from addiction, from mental illness, etc. are not even considered, neither are most cures from blindness which could be the remission of a hysterical reaction. The ones that are left, and are certified as miraculous, are so remarkable and so well-documented that they are among the best evidence for belief that there is.

I have always wondered why one of the major Catholic presses, such as Ignatius or Paulist Press, has not compiled a book listing each saint of modern times and described in detail the miracles offered as evidence for their canonization, and described why each could not have been the result of non-supernatural causes. The combined evidence would be jaw-dropping for most people. (Or, someone should do a website with that information.)

Sceptics say that the miracles we use as evidence for beatifications and canonisations are not really miracles, but due to either spontaneous remission or some other medical reason as of yet unknown.

Sounds like an atheist version of the God of the Gaps argument, to me.

What does “spontaneous remission” mean, anyway? “It’s unexplainable, but since my materialist worldview doesn’t permit the possibility of a supernatural cause, we’ll label this as such to say it happened, but it couldn’t have been God’s intervention…”

 

[PazzoGrande]

Scientists EXPECT us to believe that the Big Bang arose spontaneously, naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) from absolutely nothing. There is no science to support this belief, yet that’s what they want us to believe, in the name of science.

Oddly enough, we’re also supposed to believe that life in the universe somehow came from nothing, even though it’s a scientific principle that such a thing can’t actually happen – scientists say that life can only come from other life.

 

[Nabooru]

I always get a kick out of the reasoning that, for example, “The man who built the 33-step staircase the nuns prayed for was eventually found to be a real person. Therefore, it could not have been a miracle.” Because God can only operate and answer prayers in ways that don’t make sense, right?

 

[snarflemike]

Pinning everything which is unexplainable on a “medical reason yet unknown” is something I like to call Science of the Gaps

I see what you did there!

Yes, the old “we don’t know how it happened, we just know it wasn’t God” explanation (???)

 

[JesuisSean]

An apple has an inside and an outside.

Reality has an inside and an outside.

If an event is governed from the outside, then only the effect of the event will be seen from the inside. The red sea may divide, yet there seems to be no cause, but in fact the cause is from the outside and thus the cause can not be seen here on the inside. Thus it appears to be a miracle, an event without any apparent cause.

Proof of the existence of the outside, is the famous 2 slit light experiment.

If it is let to function without detecting the photons as they pass through the 2 slits, it is governed from the outside, and in turn it produces the famous interference wave pattern.

If it is let to function with actually detecting the photons as they pass through the 2 slit, it is governed from the inside, and in turn it produces the collapse of the famous interference wave pattern, hence we now see particle behavior rather than wave behavior.

The reason for this is because the outside is different from the inside, thus the laws of physics on the outside are different than the laws of physics on the inside, hence the famous Particle/Wave Duality.

Thus it is to be understood that it only seems miraculous if the full picture, both the CAUSE and the EFFECT are not both seen.

See today’s miracle here outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm

 

[MPat]

Sceptics say that the miracles we use as evidence for beatifications and canonisations are not really miracles, but due to either spontaneous remission or some other medical reason as of yet unknown. What would be the Church’s response to that?

“Yay!”…? Well, it means that the skeptics cannot write off the miracle as a fraud, an error or an ordinary occurrence with a known explanation. That’s why they have to take it on faith that it is an ordinary occurrence with an unknown explanation (or they would have to become Catholics). It means that the Congregation for the Causes of Saints has done a great work. We can hardly expect anything more.

 

[tabycat]

I always laugh inside when somebody tries to disprove God’s power or existence by demonstrating the method he used for his miracles!

Some of the ‘methods’ used to ‘disprove’ God’s power (and existence) take more faith then believing in God. :tsktsk::nun1:

 

[didymus]

Some of the ‘methods’ used to ‘disprove’ God’s power (and existence) take more faith then believing in God. :tsktsk::nun1:

How so?
This has been true in the past but nowadays the research into claims of medical cures is pretty strict including outside experts.

 

[JesuisSean]

An apple has an inside and an outside.

Reality has an inside and an outside.

If an event is governed from the outside, then only the effect of the event will be seen from the inside. The red sea may divide, yet there seems to be no cause, but in fact the cause is from the outside and thus the cause can not be seen here on the inside. Thus it appears to be a miracle, an event without any apparent cause.

Proof of the existence of the outside, is the famous 2 slit light experiment.

If it is let to function without detecting the photons as they pass through the 2 slits, it is governed from the outside, and in turn it produces the famous interference wave pattern.

If it is let to function with actually detecting the photons as they pass through the 2 slit, it is governed from the inside, and in turn it produces the collapse of the famous interference wave pattern, hence we now see particle behavior rather than wave behavior.

The reason for this is because the outside is different from the inside, thus the laws of physics on the outside are different than the laws of physics on the inside, hence the famous Particle/Wave Duality.

Thus it is to be understood that it only seems miraculous if the full picture, both the CAUSE and the EFFECT are not both seen.

See today’s miracle here outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm

Sorry if the fonts seemed a tad small at the website.
I have made adjustments to get around the problem.

Cause → Firefox 14.0.1 has an MS Sans Serif font bug. Firefox 15 [Beta] has fixed the bug.

 

[Hokomai]

How about some decent miracles for a change. The resurrection of a decomposing corpse, walking on water, bread into wine, causing fig trees to wither with a glance, parting the red sea: that sort of thing. How come all we get are fuzzy photos from old Portuguese newspapers, things that happen anyway like cancers failing to grow and dying because of their poor bioinfrastructure and so on?

 

[tabycat]

Sceptics say that the miracles we use as evidence for beatifications and canonisations are not really miracles, but due to either spontaneous remission or some other medical reason as of yet unknown. What would be the Church’s response to that?

On the History Channal a few years ago there was a program on miracles and a priest said that scientictics use the term ‘spotaneous remission’ for ‘mircles’. :clapping:

 

[Hokomai]

On the History Channel a few years ago there was a program on miracles and a priest said that scientists use the term ‘spontaneous remission’ for ‘miracles’. :clapping:

Well this would be a comment worthy of delight and applause were it to be true. It is not true. Spontaneous remission is something cancers, for example, do. It is in their nature. It does not require explanation. It is like claiming it is a miracle when the sun comes up (if I can use the old-Church dogma as an expression), or when we wake up after being asleep. Or, to use less usual examples, when a meteorite hits the earth, or an earthquake happens, or any of the other unusual things Christians used to claim as miracles before they gave up in the face of science.

If there is a God, and God does do miracles, why does he not do ones likke e used to do such as those I listed earlier? Or better still, do something really impressive, like resurrecting a cremated person? And if he does only miracles that require faith to accept them, why does he bother, since the faith cannot be strengthened by them?