Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[Pallas_Athene]

You have failed to distinguish miracles which are coercive and those which are not.

This “coercive” stuff only exists in your imagination. A miracle is either convincing despite one’s prior beliefs or not. Even the most convincing miracle does not take away our freedom to live our life as we want to. Only a full brainwashing would do that.

Because they are scientifically inexplicable **and **motivated by compassion, not gratuitous demonstrations of power.

You are not qualified to make guesses of the “intent” of the miracle provider. Of course all this is idle spinning of our wheels. God does not provide “miracles”, convincing or otherwise.

That amounts to an act of faith that scientists will eventually explain everything…

You are playing with the words. Based upon the track record of science we have a reasonable expectation - not some blind faith that science might be able to answer meaningful questions… not ALL questions.

1. Throughout history and throughout the world there have been countless cases of scientifically inexplicable recoveries from incurable disease in answer to prayer.

How many limbs were regrown on humans, not on planaria?

 

[tonyrey]

So all of the alleged witnesses who saw Jesus’ miracles were all coerced by Jesus and their free will was impeded?

Surely after having hard evidence or an encounter, a person still has the free will to accept it and follow it just as much as they can reject it, right? Surely no purposes would be defeated?

Its also worth noting:

Your argument in another thread was that people choose their beliefs, when I and others were saying that it is impossible to choose your belief. Now here you are supporting the idea that knowing certain facts removes the free will/ability to choose your belief. Which is it, tony?

Not everyone accepted the miracles and some attributed them to the devil. How about that for a choice?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Not everyone accepted the miracles and some attributed them to the devil. How about that for a choice?

Choice it is. I like that you debunked your own hypothesis that miracles are “coercive”. Well done, Tony.

 

[tonyrey]

You have failed to distinguish miracles which are coercive and those which are not.

Ad hominem.

A miracle is either convincing despite one’s prior beliefs or not.

False dilemma. There are degrees of conviction.

Even the most convincing miracle does not take away our freedom to live our life as we want to.

St Paul, amongst others, refutes that assertion.

Only a full brainwashing would do that.

Just one convincing event suffices.

Because they are scientifically inexplicable **and **

*motivated by compassion, not gratuitous demonstrations of power.

You are not qualified to make guesses of the “intent” of the miracle provider.

Are you qualified to guess that an inexplicable cure is not motivated by compassion?

Of course all this is idle spinning of our wheels. God does not provide “miracles”, convincing or otherwise.

A splendid example of begging the question!

That amounts to an act of faith that scientists will eventually explain everything…

*.

You are playing with the words. Based upon the track record of science we have a reasonable expectation - not some blind faith that science might be able to answer meaningful questions… not ALL questions.

Your criterion of “meaningful” is determined by your unmitigated faith in the hypothesis that rational beings are **fortuitously **derived from mindless molecules. Once again the blind Goddess returns in all her power and glory…

Throughout history and throughout the world there have been countless cases of scientifically inexplicable recoveries from incurable disease in answer to prayer.

How many limbs were regrown on humans, not on planaria?

You obviously cannot grasp the distinction between scientifically inexplicable events and those which are ludicrous…

 

[Bradski]

Your criterion of credibility is a miracle which is coercive - like a permanent message in the sky.

So a message in the sky is coercive but Mary walking the parapets like Banqo’s ghost for hours at a time over a three year period is…what exactly? Could you explain the difference to me? A specific sign available for all to see, repeatable over not just months but years. Are you going to deny it happened after millions saw it? Hours at a time. Day after day. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year.

I think we’re going to have the unusual position of you trying to deny a miracle happened when it appears to be far more convincing than Fatima by I don’t know how many orders of magnitude.

In any case, I don’t need a miracle to be ‘coercive’ for anyone at all. I just need it to be personally convincing. As I said, a personal message from someone I knew who is now dead. If I turn up on the forum singing God’s praise and thanking Him for my new found belief, you’ll know I’ve received one. Otherwise, cancer remissions and Mary-on-a-roof won’t cut it I’m afraid.

And did you check out any of those thousands upon thousands of pictures by any chance? Any luck finding any?

 

[tonyrey]

*Not everyone accepted the miracles and some attributed them to the devil. How about that for a choice? *

You are forgetting the miracles were not your ludicrous cases of regrown limbs or permanent messages in the sky.

 

[tonyrey]

]So a message in the sky is coercive but Mary walking the parapets like Banqo’s ghost for hours at a time over a three year period is…what exactly? Could you explain the difference to me? A specific sign available for all to see, repeatable over not just months but years. Are you going to deny it happened after millions saw it? Hours at a time. Day after day. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year. I think we’re going to have the unusual position of you trying to deny a miracle happened when it appears to be far more convincing than Fatima by I don’t know how many orders of magnitude.

I regret that I have no idea of what you are referring to…

In any case, I don’t need a miracle to be ‘coercive’ for anyone at all. I just need it to be personally convincing. As I said, a personal message from someone I knew who is now dead. If I turn up on the forum singing God’s praise and thanking Him for my new found belief, you’ll know I’ve received one. Otherwise, cancer remissions and Mary-on-a-roof won’t cut it I’m afraid.

I regret to inform you that God is not a slot machine. Motives are taken into account.

And did you check out any of those thousands upon thousands of pictures by any chance? Any luck finding any?

You must be thinking of some one else…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ad hominem.

You know, Tony, you should REALLY learn what an “ad hominem fallacy” is. If a poster would say about another that she is a drooling idiot, that is NOT an ad hominem. It may be rude, but not an “ad hominem”. If, however one would say that the argument presented is unacceptable, because the proponent is a drooling idiot, that would be an ad hominem fallacy. It is a cheap trick to invoke an incorrect “ad hominem” when you run out of arguments. As SonofMan correctly pointed out you flip-flop between being able to choose what you believe and having that ability removed by a “coercive” miracle. A typical example of “doublethink”. And, no, that is NOT an ad hominem.

Just one convincing event suffices.

For whom?

Are you qualified to guess that an inexplicable cure is not motivated by compassion?

The “motivation” is irrelevant. A properly executed miracle would allow us to make meaningful decisions. We would not have to have “blind faith” about God’s existence, we would KNOW. Even if God would reveal his exact demands for our “salvation”, that would still allow us to choose to comply or not. Some people might not choose to be “saved”.

You obviously cannot grasp the distinction between scientifically inexplicable events and those which are ludicrous…

Scientifically inexplicable would be the regeneration of a lost limb. Even though the regrowth of lost body parts is quite frequent in nature. Ludicrous would be walking on water…

 

[Bradski]

I regret that I have no idea of what you are referring to…

The miracle of Zeitoun. Post 67. Aren’t you reading what I post? Here’s a snippet:

‘This wasn’t just the sun appearing to move about. This wasn’t second hand reports of possible eye witnesses who may have heard something from someone. And this wasn’t a one off. This was the actual mother of the Son of God herself making regular appearances for hours at a time on a church roof in the middle of a town over a period of three years in front of (reported) millions’.

So read that post and then read Post 105 and answer the question there. To whit:

If a message in the sky is a coercive miracle, then Mary appearing before millions for hours at a time over a period of years is not? How do you explain that? Or is it that the miracle probably didn’t occur. Keen to hear your response…

I regret to inform you that God is not a slot machine.

I don’t need, nor did I ask, for a response from God. This was a requirement for the paranormal (or supernatural - take it as you will).

 

[PRmerger]

You know…an analogy occurred to me.

Let’s say that one of the Catholic Answers apologists wrote an article about how one of her children had become Muslim.

And the entire point of the article was, after describing the journey, to say: Let’s just revel in the fact that my child is Muslim. I simply take great pleasure in describing the journey he took.

That would be…odd, wouldn’t it?

Given the fact that the entire raison d’etre of this Apologist is to provide reasons for her Catholic faith, for her to seemingly be complacent with her child’s conversion to Islam would be peculiar.

And, what would be even weirder would be for all of us here on the CAFs, Catholics all who love our faith dearly and spend a great deal of time here professing its beauty, to say: why question it? The child is Muslim now. Good for him!

Wouldn’t you expect all of us to be puzzled at this Apologist’s lack of desire to apply her entire life’s work to that which is important to her?

 

[PRmerger]

IThere is a good reason that skeptics would prefer the regrowth of missing limbs

You do know what this means, right?

It means that you understand that…

something can’t come from…

nothing.

So if an arm grows from nothing…it’s proof of a miracle, yeah?

Something can’t come from nothing.

Hmmmm…

Atheists seem to understand this.

And yet…

Let’s look at this discussion:

Believers: Something can’t come from nothing. The universe, and all that. #proofofGodsexistence

Atheists: of course it can. Who says the universe couldn’t have come from nothing?

Which is it, atheists: something can’t come from nothing?

Or…

something can come from nothing?

 

[Bradski]

You know…an analogy occurred to me.

Am I missing something or are you comparing a devout Catholic’s lack of interest in questioning her child becoming a Muslim with a faulty radio?

So if an arm grows from nothing…it’s proof of a miracle, yeah?

If you think that a salamander’s limb grows back ‘from nothing’ then I guess you’d think it would be a a miracle. But it doesn’t so it isn’t. It’s not like it materialises if someone says ‘Energise!’ It’s not common, but it happens in nature. However, it would be a miracle if the same process (which itself is not miraculous) occurred spontaneously in a human.

‘Once the salamanders replenished their macrophage levels, the researchers re-amputated the animals’ limb stumps, which then fully regenerated at the normal rate’. livescience.com/34513-how-salamanders-regenerate-lost-limbs.html

Any news on piccies of Mary?

 

[PRmerger]

Am I missing something or are you comparing a devout Catholic’s lack of interest in questioning her child becoming a Muslim with a faulty radio?

Yes, luv. I am.

 

[PRmerger]

If you think that a salamander’s limb grows back ‘from nothing’ then I guess you’d think it would be a a miracle. But it doesn’t so it isn’t. It’s not like it materialises if someone says ‘Energise!’ It’s not common, but it happens in nature. However, it would be a miracle if the same process (which itself is not miraculous) occurred spontaneously in a human.

Fair enough.

So you are not one of those who would convert if an amputee (human) grew a new limb.

Because that’s not miraculous.

Ok.

Some of your peers, however, seem to acknowledge that this would be a miraculous event and would indeed be in the list of Things That Make You Go Hmmm…

You, however, are hardcore, brother.

Even an amputee growing a new limb would simply make you sniff, “So? Salamanders do that!”

 

[PRmerger]

Any news on piccies of Mary?

I haven’t caught up on this thread yet, so not sure what this means but it sounds kind of snarky and disrespectful.

Surely you’re not talking about the Virgin Mary, yeah?

 

[Bradski]

So you are not one of those who would convert if an amputee (human) grew a new limb.

However, it would be a miracle if the same process (which itself is not miraculous) occurred spontaneously in a human.

 

[PRmerger]

Am I missing something or are you comparing a devout Catholic’s lack of interest in questioning her child becoming a Muslim with a faulty radio?

I often wonder when people act incredulous about analogies.

Of course, some analogies are just plain…wrong. So if someone said, “You are against abortion? Well how about if I just come take away your cable TV and see how you like that!”…well, we can simply dismiss this person’s argument, and probably no one would fault us for completely ignoring this person for the remainder of the dialogue.

But when I say:
Ornaments are to Christmas trees and earrings are to earlobes…

and someone counters with, “Ummm…surely you’re not compaing a majestic green 10 foot tree to a fleshy piece of cartilage!”…

I wonder about their ability to think in the abstract.

 

[PRmerger]

However, it would be a miracle if the same process (which itself is not miraculous) occurred spontaneously in a human.

Why would it be miraculous?

 

[Bradski]

Why would it be miraculous?

If you don’t think it would be miraculous, then please say so. Pallas will be more than interested. I can tell you about the biology and embryonic stem cells etc but it doesn’t seem worth the effort.

 

[Aloysium]

Today’s Gospel reading:

Matthew 13:55-58
Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?
Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?”
And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and in his own house.”s
And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith.

In the context of this discussion, what this means is that the miraculous exists and what keeps us from it, is ourselves.
This is all, one grand miracle; each moment is sacred and exists within the relationship we have with God.
When one sees reality as comprised ultimately of, let’s say, blind physical particles, or material objects that provide directly or symbolically, pleasure, power and honour, this constitutes the parameters within which we will relate to it and to one another.
One is seeing the superficial, worldly appearance, but not what truly exists behind the veil.
Thus no miracles are sought, to be granted nor denied.