The Vatican's methods of verifying Miracles

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Continuing the discussion from Why do Christians reject the supernatural claims of non-Christians?:

So in the previous thread it was discussed that miracles have to be verified. Here are some articles on that subject.

The Science of Miracles: How the Vatican Decides | Live Science

and for a source typically unfriendly to the church

How the Vatican verifies miracles.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Thanks for posting. In evaluating any miracle claims, I would say that my standard would start with Jesus and how he performed his miracles and the results from them. He was doing miracles on demand as opposed to months/years needing to pass by for the cure to take place. That’s what I’d consider a miracle!

The methods that I read especially from the second article are less than scientific, but I’d say any decent investigation is better than none. However, I still don’t consider this objective for the following reasons:

• I see no published information on the study/investigation and results. I can read about the different methods all day but how or if they were put into practice and the results for each individual case, just as you would expect in other scientific/medical journals, is another story.
• So far, most of the investigated cases (90% of the cases?) are of medical miracles involving someone being cured. This says nothing about the many miraculous feats of the type that Jesus performed, like foreknowledge, walking on water, praying away storms, etc.
• Also due to the nature of healthcare, all or most of the patient’s medical records are private. The investigators are not there from start to finish to witness if the patient really prayed, when did they pray, if the patient received prior treatments, if the patient is being honest, etc. What about the cases where patient’s have prayed and nothing happened?
• There’s way too much fraudulent and/or exaggerated cases out there, even among investigators. Ghost Hunters investigate, UFO hunters investigate, Parapsychologists investigate, there have been big name televangelist caught in fraud, etc. So we have to be careful not to buy into something too quickly just because it’s been investigated. I’d want something to differentiate Catholic investigations from the ones mentioned earlier. So a healthy dose of skepticism would demand stronger standards, probably nothing less than scientific.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

• I see no published information on the study/investigation and results.

If you are curious as to individual cases, what cases are you curious about? That could help p(name removed by moderator)oint better information.

• So far, most of the investigated cases (90% of the cases?) are of medical miracles involving someone being cured. This says nothing about the many miraculous feats of the type that Jesus performed, like foreknowledge, walking on water, praying away storms, etc.

Currently, this is the large majority of the cases the Church is dealing with. I know there are Biblical scholars–both Catholic and Christian–who have written about miracles before written history was accurate, but least we get sidetracked again, why don’t we stick with modern times?

• Also due to the nature of healthcare, all or most of the patient’s medical records are private. The investigators are not there from start to finish to witness if the patient really prayed, when did they pray, if the patient received prior treatments, if the patient is being honest, etc. What about the cases where patient’s have prayed and nothing happened?

In order for a miracle to be properly investigated medical records must be released. The doctors on the case first must declare that there is no medical reason for the occurrence. Many times, if not all times, these are secular doctors. The Vatican then takes this evidence and asks for witnesses…again, giving great creedance to secular sources like a nurse who witnessed a family bring in a relic or an admin who recorded notes on the patient’s charts. They take all of this information, along with the family’s claims and bring it to their doctors, scientits and experts. After all of their experts verify that it seems correct they go back to the expert community with any questions. It is very thorough, even if they were not presant from the start.

In addition to that, they may call for even more medical tests to be performed CAT scans, bloodwork, etc in order to verify all claims.

As to why some never get a miracle…well…that’s another issue for another thread.

• There’s way too much fraudulent and/or exaggerated cases out there, even among investigators. … So we have to be careful not to buy into something too quickly just because it’s been investigatd. I’d want something to differentiate Catholic investigations from the ones mentioned earlier. So a healthy dose of skepticism would demand stronger standards, probably nothing less than scientific.

Oh certainly, that is why the Vatican often can take years, or even decades, to determine that a miracle has occurred. A seemingly small miracle–like the restoration of sight–can literally involve hundreds, if not thousands of lay people and experts in many functions. This is anything but a fringe group with no checks and balances.

 

[MPat]

I see no published information on the study/investigation and results.

Also due to the nature of healthcare, all or most of the patient’s medical records are private.

I’d say the second statement mostly answers the first.

Also, what would one write about?

For the same reasons (privacy and lack of useful generalisation) we do not see many public detailed accounts concerning investigation of crimes.

What about the cases where patient’s have prayed and nothing happened?

And…?

You seem to expect a test on effectiveness of prayer as a treatment method. That is not what is being tested.

Remember, investigation of miracles is closer to criminal investigations rather than to scientific investigations.

There’s way too much fraudulent and/or exaggerated cases out there, even among investigators. Ghost Hunters investigate, UFO hunters investigate, Parapsychologists investigate, there have been big name televangelist caught in fraud, etc. So we have to be careful not to buy into something too quickly just because it’s been investigated. I’d want something to differentiate Catholic investigations from the ones mentioned earlier. So a healthy dose of skepticism would demand stronger standards, probably nothing less than scientific.

Some scientists have also been caught making data up (or just being sloppy). So…?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If you are curious as to individual cases, what cases are you curious about? That could help p(name removed by moderator)oint better information.

Lets cut to the chase before we have to go through another 100+ post thread w/ NO evidence being presented. Do you have any scientific peer-reviewed replicated studies that examine these claims, and I mean studies that the actual researchers published?

Furthermore, have you read through the research from secular sources (scientists not working with or under the Church)?

Here’s one scientific perspective:
Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials

Prayer has been reported to improve outcomes in human as well as nonhuman species, to have no effect on outcomes, to worsen outcomes and to have retrospective healing effects.

I’ve yet to read any full recovery or “cure” based on prayer from the secular sources. The “improved outcomes” are mostly that of improvement (improved heart conditions, blood pressure, etc), but no full and lasting “cure”.

 

[STT]

Lets cut to the chase before we have to go through another 100+ post thread w/ NO evidence being presented. Do you have any scientific peer-reviewed replicated studies that examine these claims, and I mean studies that the actual researchers published?

Furthermore, have you read through the research from secular sources (scientists not working with or under the Church)?

Here’s one scientific perspective:
Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials

I’ve yet to read any full recovery or “cure” based on prayer from the secular sources. The “improved outcomes” are mostly that of improvement (improved heart conditions, blood pressure, etc), but no full and lasting “cure”.

Interesting article.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Archbishop Fulton Sheen Alleged Miracle Passes Major Vatican Test| National Catholic Register

For a miracle to even reach the Vatican secular doctors must verify that there is no way possible for what occurred to medically happen. While published studies are all well and good, they are not the end all, be all, since many have been found to be flawed.

 

[MPat]

Lets cut to the chase before we have to go through another 100+ post thread w/ NO evidence being presented.

Evidence has already been presented (two links in the original post).

Such evidence confirms that there is a process.

If you did not notice evidence when it has been presented, why should anyone present any more evidence? Why should we think that it is not going to be a waste of time and effort?

Maybe instead we should start by discussing what evidence you are going to recognise and why?

For there are seem to be some problems with that. For example, you ask:

Do you have any scientific peer-reviewed replicated studies that examine these claims, and I mean studies that the actual researchers published?

But why should we have any “scientific peer-reviewed replicated studies” here?

Such studies are good for checking if something is a “law of nature”. They are completely useless for checking what happened in a single case.

Here, where we deal with single cases, they are as useless as in criminal investigations.

But, of course, if you really want to claim that “scientific peer-reviewed replicated studies” are required for any kind of claim, you are free to look for a couple of them confirming that, let’s say, you will be able to recognise some piece of evidence (also a singular event).

 

[AgnosticBoy]

But why should we have any “scientific peer-reviewed replicated studies” here?

Such studies are good for checking if something is a “law of nature”. They are completely useless for checking what happened in a single case.

Here, where we deal with single cases, they are as useless as in criminal investigations.

But, of course, if you really want to claim that “scientific peer-reviewed replicated studies” are required for any kind of claim, you are free to look for a couple of them confirming that, let’s say, you will be able to recognise some piece of evidence (also a singular event).

If you want to claim certainty and objectivity, then we should expect scientific evidence. When a process or inquiry lacks empirical verification, then all types of lies, artefacts, bias, can creep in. Also, while the healing of Mrs. X may be considered a single event, however the process that Mrs. X engaged in is not a single event in that others can repeat it by praying for a healing.

Evidence has already been presented (two links in the original post).

Such evidence confirms that there is a process.

If you did not notice evidence when it has been presented, why should anyone present any more evidence? Why should we think that it is not going to be a waste of time and effort?

Maybe instead we should start by discussing what evidence you are going to recognise and why?

The evidence that I asked for has not been provided. I was given information ABOUT a process and results. Besides that, the information so far comes from outside or secondary sources and not from the researchers themselves. So not only do I question the research itself, but also the reporters who are writing about the research.

 

[MPat]

If you want to claim certainty and objectivity, then we should expect scientific evidence.

It sure appears that you said it with an implicit claim of “certainty and objectivity”.

So, are we to “expect scientific evidence” here? Or did that “you” mean specifically “anyone but me”?

Or are you going to discover some exceptions…?

Also, while the healing of Mrs. X may be considered a single event, however the process that Mrs. X engaged in is not a single event in that others can repeat it by praying for a healing.

But it is the single healing that is being investigated. And it is a single healing that is being claimed.

Yes, we know: it would be much more convenient for you if someone claimed that praying is a reliable and predictable treatment method. But you see, we do not claim that. As it is said, “God is not a vending machine.”. He is not so predictable.

The evidence that I asked for has not been provided.

Then don’t write “NO evidence being presented”. Write “NO evidence I was asking for being presented”.

At which point it becomes clear that the question becomes “Why should we do what you ask?”.

Well, why?

Did you ask especially nicely? Doesn’t look like that…

Do you have authority to order us around? Doesn’t look like that…

Do you always do what others ask? Doesn’t look like that either…

Is it something our position somehow “implies”? You didn’t demonstrate that.

So, why?

So not only do I question the research itself, but also the reporters who are writing about the research.

And…?

Are we now supposed to question your questioning?

After all, you did not make any case why this “questioning” is supposed to be reasonable.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

There is scientific evidence,

This evidence is contained in the

‘There is no scientific way to explain this’ ’ we have no way to explain it’

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It sure appears that you said it with an implicit claim of “certainty and objectivity”.

So, are we to “expect scientific evidence” here? Or did that “you” mean specifically “anyone but me”?

Or are you going to discover some exceptions…?

Keep in mind that I don’t claim that miracles can’t happen. I haven’t come across any good evidence either way so I’m completely agnostic on the issue.

But it is the single healing that is being investigated. And it is a single healing that is being claimed.

Yes, we know: it would be much more convenient for you if someone claimed that praying is a reliable and predictable treatment method. But you see, we do not claim that. As it is said, “God is not a vending machine.”. He is not so predictable.

Your point would be valid if we are more concerned with explainability, but instead I’m more concerned with observation under rigorous controls. That latter part can be done for single occurrences if you select and follow participants from the start to finish (I’d personally end the study after a year… Jesus healed ON DEMAND so why even wait that long???).

I’m willing to bet that all of these Catholic investigations follow a retrospective design, where the outcome is already known and then you work backwards to figure out factors that led to the outcome. This leaves a big risk for selection bias, missing, incomplete, or intentionally misleading data (did the pt. receive prior treatments? Any reliable track record?). I’d prefer a prospective study design where the outcome is not known (no cure from a miracle yet), select a group of diseased patients, make sure the only intervention is prayer, and keep track from there.

Interesting article.

I agree!

 

[MPat]

Keep in mind that I don’t claim that miracles can’t happen. I haven’t come across any good evidence either way so I’m completely agnostic on the issue.

Oh, but I am not talking about existence of miracles. This is the claim that is claimed with “certainty and objectivity” and without “scientific evidence” (actually, without any evidence):

If you want to claim certainty and objectivity, then we should expect scientific evidence.

Yes, that one. It seems to be self-undermining.

Can you support it with “scientific evidence”? Or would you prefer to weaken it instead?

Your point would be valid if we are more concerned with explainability, but instead I’m more concerned with observation under rigorous controls.

By itself, what you are concerned about is none of our business.

That latter part can be done for single occurrences if you select and follow participants from the start to finish

Nonsense.

You cannot have “scientific peer-reviewed replicated studies” when you have a sample of one. You might have a “case study”, but 1) that’s very similar to what we already have, 2) who (which journal) would publish it?

(I’d personally end the study after a year… Jesus healed ON DEMAND so why even wait that long???)

No, Jesus did not make miracles on demand. For example, see Matthew 16:1-4 (including “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. And he left them, and went away.”).

And that’s the point: the evidence is already available. Use it. Show us what you can do with it.

I’d prefer a prospective study design where the outcome is not known (no cure from a miracle yet), select a group of diseased patients, make sure the only intervention is prayer, and keep track from there.

No, if you would actually prefer that, you would be asking how to get funds for this experiment.

Seriously, are we supposed to believe that in demands of the type “Evidence! More evidence! I refuse to believe unless I get more evidence!” the key word is “evidence”? No, it is obvious that the key word is “refuse”.

So, again - why don’t you show us what you can do with the evidence you have?

 

[edwest21]

No scientist or doctor would publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal about something with no answer. In one case, in South American a submarine was rising to the surface and accidentally collided with a Japanese surface ship. Water was rushing in and the Captain wanted to save as many men as he could, but he had to close a hatch and could not. He prayed to a saint, saw a bright light and knew he could close the hatch, which he did. Experts from the Navy were brought in, the sub was examined and that hatch was closed. Their conclusion? It was impossible for anyone to close that hatch because they would be pushing against tons of water pressure. Cause for closing? Unknown.