The so-called "interaction problem" of spiritual/physical

[Wesrock]

You’re relying on the idea that we can reliably predict when or where miracles will happen or have a statistically higher chance of happening.

Miracles don’t work that way. They are (or would be, from your perspective) not a naturally occurring phenomenon. We might experience a miracle, and the best we can do in that situation is determine whether any known natural phenomenon can explain it. The best that can be done is to rule out natural explanations.

 

[Abrosz]

You’re relying on the idea that we can reliably predict when or where miracles will happen or have a statistically higher chance of happening.

No, my friend. It is the believers who say that miracles can happen, so it is their job to make a prediction. I predict that there are NO miracles, so I bet that there will be no miracles. And I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you interested in betting against me?

 

[Dan_Defender]

How about the documented AWARE study? People who during their near death experiences saw other people coming in and going out or saw something on the roof of the building, etc. Just the evidence of consciousness without brain activity can never be explained by the atheists.

 

[Abrosz]

How about the documented AWARE study? People who during their near death experiences saw other people coming in and going out or saw something on the roof of the building, etc. Just the evidence of consciousness without brain activity can never be explained by the atheists.

Make it more than just an anecdotal “evidence”.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I am exactly as skeptical as you would be…

I wouldn’t be as skeptical as you, because I do not believe that God limits his miraculous work to only Catholics. I think Islam is wrong, but I also acknowledge that they are trying to follow God, however wrongly. That might be enough for God to decide to work a miracle for them.

If the miracle is performed in the name of Mohammad, then I’d be pretty skeptical, I’ll give you that.

Try to make is a proper, double blind test…

This presupposes that God always works a miracle, and that a miracle is guaranteed within the test group. Neither of these statements is true. You could do a hundred test groups and only walk away with one miracle. That’s doesn’t disprove miracles, it only shows that they are rare, which is something we already knew.

After a pre-determined time elapsed, check if there was a significant difference in the healing ratio.

This is not how miracles work… at all… this is not how the miracles at Lourdes work… at all… not even close. Have you ever read up on these miracles? It seriously doesn’t sound like you have because you don’t even seem to have the slightest grasp on what actually occurs or what we actually mean by a miraculous healing.

We don’t believe bathing in the waters at Lourdes increases the likelihood that you will be cured, or that they have any restorative properties in and of themselves. The bathing is an outward sign of faith, and God may choose to heal a person through that faith. That healing would be instantaneous. Again, as previously noted, there are THOUSANDS of documented cases like this.

The fact that you insist on a double-blind study for something for which a double blind study is literally impossible only shows me that you are ignorant of what that method actually is and how it is used; or that you’re just looking for any way of circumventing the substantial evidence in favor of miracles. (Again, further proving the entire point of this thread… you’re a poster child for what we’re talking about.)

So it is NOT an evidence for the intercession. So it is NOT an evidence for a miracle.

Non-sequitor. The fact that it’s a matter of faith about who interceded does not change the fact that a miraculous, scientifically-inexplicable event occurred.

try to recruit a bunch of people with well documented problems - before the intercessory prayer starts.

The cured man’s problem was well document. There are multiple scans, doctors notes, etc. The only reason you think they weren’t any is because you have chosen to ignore it. You have been presented with the evidence, and you have chosen to blind yourself rather than look at it. You couldn’t be proving our point any better if you tried.

I’m done. Feel free to respond but I’ve already spent enough time in this futile discussion. You have chosen ignorance, and my words aren’t going to fix that.

 

[Freddy]

I would make the counterclaim that miraculous events can and have left very clear evidence.

How did we immediately go from the spiritual realm connecting with us to miracles?

I would have thought that if we were connected by someone/something from the spiritual realm then we could be told about something of which we had no prior knowledge. Pretty easy to verify I would have thought.

The ‘invisible man’ argument doesn’t work. Anyone can claim that something extraordinary exists…except you won’t be able to access it. Have I told you about the dragon in my basement?

And Lourdes? It was a few years ago - maybe this forum, and I posted some figures on the place. I looked at the numbers attending, the likelihood of them having cancer or heart disease, the number of miracle cures associated with those illnesses and the frequncy of spontaneous remissions in the general population.

Turned out that you had a slightly better chance of being healed if you didn’t go there.

 

[Dovekin]

The procedure for canonizations used to include a Devil’s Advocate who would present the evidence against the candidate and any miracles worked after the candidate’s death. This is who would have produced any studies of the kind you have been proposing.

St John Paul II revised the process to make it more collaborative, more along the lines of modern academic scholarship rather than a contentious legal battle. This should have made it closer to the techniques of modern science, which uses similar processes. If the issues you raise have not been addressed, it is a serious shortcoming. That is why I think most issues must have been addressed, repeatedly and in different ways.

There are some caveats. A double blind study would be immoral, since it would randomly assign people to either seek cures or not, ie one group would be denied cures. There are no such things as placebos for this, prayers that would not ask for intercession but sound like they do? The one to be cured would almost have to know if he is asking… As a result, the miracles have to be treated as singular historical events, judged more by historical techniques like testimony, photographs, etc. Perhaps someone could create some groupings of causes by looking at multiple records, but that has drawbacks as well.

 

[Abrosz]

If the miracle is performed in the name of Mohammad, then I’d be pretty skeptical, I’ll give you that.

Cool. I feel the same way about any miracles.

This presupposes that God always works a miracle, and that a miracle is guaranteed within the test group.

I already explained it to @gorgias and @wesrock. But, what the heck I will explain it again.

It does not have to be guaranteed, only that is has a non-zero probability. And you need to give an a-priori prediction what would qualify as a miracle.

Of course open ended predictions are meaningless. Something: “I assert that somewhere, something will happen for which we currently have no explanation, and we shall consider it to an evidence for a miracle”. That would be a joke. If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to make a prediction, something like: “If we send a hundred thousand sick people to Lourdes, then ‘X’ number will be healed” within ‘Y’ number of days. This can be measured and decided if it did happen.

I assert that they do not happen. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I am willing to bet there will be no miracles. The point is that you need to substantiate that miracles happen, while I bet that they will not happen. The lack of miracles is easy to count.

The fact that it’s a matter of faith about who interceded does not change the fact that a miraculous, scientifically-inexplicable event occurred.

Not so fast. First, there is no evidence that anything happened. Mis-diagnosed problems are dime a dozen. Second, no one is in the position to say that there was no hitherto unknown, but natural explanation for the event. This is why the so-called medical “miracles” are unacceptable.

 

[whatistrue]

Try to make is a proper, double blind test. The way to do it is simple. Pick a group of people with the same kind of problem, or disease. Split them into two groups, one test group and one control group. Send the test group to Lourdes, and send the test group to some other place.

After a pre-determined time elapsed, check if there was a significant difference in the healing ratio.

This is the same methodology which is used when a new drug is tested. Nothing special about it.

Except that what you described is not how a new drug is tested. It is essentially impossible to prevent knowledge of where one is from both the patients and everyone the patients come in contact with (so not double blind). Aside from the fact that the groups in real experiments are not physically or procedurally separated, but the only difference is whether they receive the substance under investigation or a placebo. One might devise an experiment using water that is either from Lourdes or from the local municipal source, but all that would check was whether the water itself was efficacious, not whether the location has something to do with it. I don’t have citations for this, but I have read of experiments where persons in a hospital were either included on a list for prayer by a devout group or not (with the patient and his/her caretakers ignorant of which list they were on) with an overall increase in positive outcomes, such as more rapid recovery and less pain/lingering effects, for the group that was prayed for.

 

[Gorgias]

But it is possible to predict that a miracle will NOT happen.

Yeah, but miracles are uncommon events. Predicting that something that’s quite uncommon won’t happen isn’t all that noteworthy. Let’s give it a try: “I predict that it won’t snow in Florida on July 21.” See? Not all that impressive. Neither is yours.

If you assert that a miracle could happen, THEN it would be your job to predict it. For me it is sufficient to be able to predict that it will NOT happen. Savvy?

Yep, I get it: faced with the assertion that it’s impossible to predict, your response is “predict it, buddy!”. Umm… you’re having problems with this whole “rationality” thing, aren’t you?

But if your hypothesis is that the pebble will drop when released, then a million experiments will be a very strong indication (not a proof!) that your hypothesis was correct. Savvy???

Yep, I get it: you enjoy setting up straw men that are easy for you to knock down. Got it!

Here’s the actual experiment: we’ve got an action which has no physical indicators of its impending occurrence. We’ve got no phenomena that tell us that a miracle’s actually in the process of happening. The prediction is: “we cannot predict a miracle or observe one in process.” There ya go! That’s what you’ve been testing, and guess what? You’re right! Congratulations! (Now, please don’t ruin the experiment by using it to assert an invalid conclusion. Thanks for playing! Please come again!)

The other one to experience something that contradicts the known principles of the physical reality - with ot without a prediction. The first one would be “superior”, but the second one would also be sufficient.

And, as has been pointed out to you, we do have the second one – which, by the way, isn’t so much “experience” as it is “after-the-fact investigation.” So, yeah… we’ve got what you’re asking for!

You have this hang-up on prediction, as if that would be a necessary pre-condition for a miracle.

You’re the one who’s been requiring ‘prediction’, friend. Don’t project your hang-ups on me, please.

This remark of your proves that you have no idea what the problem is.

No, I really do. The problem is your understanding of what ‘prayer’ is and what its goals are.

If you ask for some miraculous healing, it certainly is.

Nope. It may be being *misappropriated as if it were ‘medicinal’, but that’s not its nature (or its value). Seriously – read up on it before you start making claims, ok?

Then you can perform a chi-square calculation and find out what is the probability that hypothesis is correct.

A chi-squared test on a malformed hypothesis isn’t worth a thing. That dog just don’t hunt.

 

[Gorgias]

Let me repeat it: " ANY hypothesis! Not just medication. " Do you finally get it now?

I do – but you still don’t. OK: let’s look at what prayer really is – it’s a means to grow closer to God, and to bring our will into correspondence with his. The hypothesis, then, which would be valid, is: “prayer can be a calming influence on a person, and lead to a greater relationship with God.” But… you have no interest in that kind of experiment, I’d predict.

I’m done. Feel free to respond but I’ve already spent enough time in this futile discussion. You have chosen ignorance, and my words aren’t going to fix that.

You’re a wiser man than I, @ProdglArchitect…

The ‘invisible man’ argument doesn’t work. Anyone can claim that something extraordinary exists…except you won’t be able to access it. Have I told you about the dragon in my basement?

“Invisible men” and “basement dragons” are a different story: they’re purported existence is physical and should be expected to be empirically measurable. Therefore, the lack of measurements actually does say something. Spiritual entities are wholly non-physical; so, no empirical measurements are expected to be available. So… apples and oranges, no?

Turned out that you had a slightly better chance of being healed if you didn’t go [to Lourdes].

Again: the purpose of prayer isn’t to hit it big on the healing slot machine. (Yes, some do treat it as such; still, it’s not what prayer does.)

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to make a prediction, something like: “If we send a hundred thousand sick people to Lourdes, then ‘X’ number will be healed”

Again, that’s a malformed hypothesis. If you’re going to predict an effect, it needs to be an effect that the action provides. (And, by the way… who was it, upstream, who said that prediction wasn’t necessary? Really… you should stop contradicting yourself in the same thread; it’s far too easy to fact-check and expose your irrationality.)

 

[Abrosz]

Yeah, but miracles are uncommon events. Predicting that something that’s quite uncommon won’t happen isn’t all that noteworthy.

But millions of tests all bringing back negative results is quite noteworthy.

Yep, I get it: faced with the assertion that it’s impossible to predict, your response is “predict it, buddy!”.

Nope. I do not assert something positive, you do. Therefore the onus is on you to “prove” it. What I predict, is that no miracle will happen. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I did not think so…

Here’s the actual experiment: we’ve got an action which has no physical indicators of its impending occurrence. We’ve got no phenomena that tell us that a miracle’s actually in the process of happening.

Not true. The purported outcome would be measurable. The severed limb quickly regenerating in front of our eyes. Or the stars rearranging themselves to display the text of the bible. These would be measurable.

No, I really do. The problem is your understanding of what ‘prayer’ is and what its goals are.

You keep confusing Intercessory or supplicative prayers and meditative prayers.

The hypothesis, then, which would be valid, is: “prayer can be a calming influence on a person, and lead to a greater relationship with God.” But… you have no interest in that kind of experiment, I’d predict.

Sure I would be, if we could measure that a greater relationship with God actually happened.

It is easy to say that a prayer worked, if the result is obvious (asking for snow in the winter) or if the result cannot be checked (asking for the beatific vision). When the outcome is NOT obvious, AND can be checked, the result WILL be negative… and I am willing to bet on it. You, obviously will not.

And, by the way… who was it, upstream, who said that prediction wasn’t necessary? Really… you should stop contradicting yourself in the same thread; it’s far too easy to fact-check and expose your irrationality.

You misrepresent my words. If the stars would rearrange themselves to display the text of the bible, then a prediction would not be necessary. If you be interested in some not-obvious matter, then the prediction would be necessary. But, of course I already explained it… maybe you did not comprehend it.

Please, try to pay attention. It is boring to correct your misunderstanding every time.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The ‘invisible man’ argument doesn’t work. Anyone can claim that something extraordinary exists…except you won’t be able to access it. Have I told you about the dragon in my basement?

“Invisible men” and “basement dragons” are a different story: they’re purported existence is physical and should be expected to be empirically measurable. Therefore, the lack of measurements actually does say something. Spiritual entities are wholly non-physical; so, no empirical measurements are expected to be available. So… apples and oranges, no?

The op was questioning the interaction problem between the spritual and the physical. If there is an interaction (and it appears most believe that to be true) then there will be something in the physical world which is measurably affected by that in the spiritual. Else there is no connection.

Miracles are just one example. And difficult to determine as we all agree. But there surely must be spriritual entities that could affect the physical world. But all stories of angels or demons (or dragons) are simply that. Stories. Although I’m sure we’ll now have a few examples of exorcism and guardian angels…

To head those off at the pass, I’ve never read one that could be considered valid. Back in the day we’d put a lucky event that saved a life down to a guardian angel (and there’ll be some of those I’m sure). And things that went bump in the night or someone having a medical/psychological episode down to evil spirits.

I’m not sure if anyone here would accept a story of an obscure Hindu entity doing the same. But Hindus would. But they wouldn’t accept a Christian guardian angel either.

 

[Gorgias]

But millions of tests all bringing back negative results is quite noteworthy.

I could run an experiment, asking millions of people “have you won the PowerBall lottery?”. “Millions of tests bringing back negative results” wouldn’t be ‘noteworthy’ and wouldn’t prove that there do not exist PowerBall winners. But hey… if you misunderstand the law of large numbers, perhaps you might consider researching it after you’re done learning what Catholic theology really asserts!

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I did not think so…

I’m willing to put my eternal destiny where my mouth is… and I do. I believe.

Not true. The purported outcome would be measurable. The severed limb quickly regenerating in front of our eyes. Or the stars rearranging themselves to display the text of the bible. These would be measurable.

Wow. I think you need to research the Drake equation, too. You need to add some new variables to your prediction, if you want to assert these new conditions: not just “what’s the generic probability of a miracle”, but factor in “how often do we expect a limb to regenerate miraculously?” and “how often do we expect someone to be present to witness to and record the regeneration?” and “stars rearranging themselves?” and “stars rearranging to form letters?” and “stars rearranging to form letters from the perspective of the earth?”

If you want to ask rational questions, friend, please do so. If you just want to spout absurdities, I’d ask you to refrain.

You keep confusing Intercessory or supplicative prayers and meditative prayers.

I’m not. Read the catechism, please.

It is easy to say that a prayer worked, if the result is obvious (asking for snow in the winter) or if the result cannot be checked (asking for the beatific vision).

That’s not the measure of “a prayer that worked.” I can’t expect that you’ve read the Bible to any great extent or with any rigor, but I’ll refer you to James 4:3 – “You ask but do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.”

 

[fhansen]

Pretty hard to demonstrate/prove purely spiritual experiences to another person.

 

[Gorgias]

Pretty hard to demonstrate/prove purely spiritual experiences to another person.

…especially to a person who claims that only the ‘material universe’ is what exists, to the exclusion of all else!

 

[Freddy]

fhansen:

Pretty hard to demonstrate/prove purely spiritual experiences to another person.

…especially to a person who claims that only the ‘material universe’ is what exists, to the exclusion of all else!

Personal experience? Of course. But there must be some interface with the physical world that we can recognise and agree on. Else we’re back to dragons in the basement.

 

[Rau]

But everyday scientists or physicians are just as gullible as any random person from the street.

On other threads, this argument is used by those who say evolution is nonsense.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Make it more than just an anecdotal “evidence”.

Miracles are rare occurrences. G. K. Chesterton said the most incredible thing about miracles is that they do happen. However, to some people, no evidence is enough. Even if the dead came back to life, they would not believe.

 

[fhansen]

The “problem” is that, like it or not, the experiences can be totally ineffable, beyond anything that we can normally relate to, beyond anything that our normal senses are involved in perceiving even, those senses being by-passed as it were…