Why do atheists ignore miracles?

[cerad2]

What you want to read is Joan Cruz’s “The Incorruptibles.”

amazon.com/Incorruptibles-Incorruption-Bodies-Various-Catholic/dp/0895550660

Thanks for the offer and thanks to various other people who responded to my post. I might just read it if I can find a copy in the library.

But what I really want to read is articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals. I fear we may also have a disconnect on the meaning of the word “incorruptible”.

The OP mentioned Padre Pio. I’m sure he was a fine person but scientific analysis of his stigmata was very limited. I just don’t understand why the church wastes such opportunities.

 

[TimothyH]

Those who work miracles seem unable or unwilling to do something truly miraculous, like transporting children bodily out of a burning building, or re-growing the limbs of amputees, or resurrecting a skeleton.

And if you read the accounts of many eyewitnesses about that stuff happening, would you believe?

-Tim-

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thanks for the offer and thanks to various other people who responded to my post. I might just read it if I can find a copy in the library.

I think you’d like it.

But what I really want to read is articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

I know that scientists, both secular and Catholic, have investigated many miracles for the Church. Like you, I too wonder what peer reviewed articles they might have published on these phenomenon. I don’t assume that there aren’t any. I know that many reports by distinguished scientists and doctors, both secular and religious, have been published on these phenomenon. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were several peer reviewed and available in scientific journals as well.

I fear we may also have a disconnect on the meaning of the word “incorruptible”.

Joan Cruz explains what is meant by it very well in her book. I don’t want to quote the many pages she writes distinguishing the incorruptibles from natural preservation and from mummification, though.

Anyway, incorruptibles are bodies that do not decay. Sometimes they dry and harden over the course of centuries. Occasionally, small parts of some of these bodies have decayed. Nevertheless, we have hundreds of bodies of saints that are wholly or almost wholly intact after hundreds of years. They remain flexible, not even going through rigor mortis, for decades, and sometimes for hundreds of years, without any natural or deliberately applied preservatives. As I said, they often dry and become harder, and sometimes physically darker (because of soot from candles), after a vast amount of time.

The OP mentioned Padre Pio. I’m sure he was a fine person but scientific analysis of his stigmata was very limited. I just don’t understand why the church wastes such opportunities.

There were, I believe, at least three different doctors that the Church brought in to investigate his stigmata at different times. They took serious precautions to prevent him from tampering with their efforts. They bound and sealed the wound, to see if it would heal or stop bleeding, so that he couldn’t disturb the wrappings without leaving evidence of it. They took many measures to investigate the stigmata and its origins. One of the doctors was an atheist (certainly secular and an unbeliever in miracles), I believe, while the other two were Catholics.

All the doctors agreed that Padre Pio did not self-inflict the wounds. The secularist doctor hypothesized that the wounds were caused by Padre Pio’s emotions, or something. The Catholic doctors said that the wounds had to have been supernatural. I can get you the specifics on it.

Later on, after he endured these deep wounds for fifty years, the Lord removed them shortly before his death. All traces vanished, and even though all Padre Pio’s other natural injuries left scars, the stigmata, though he had endured them for fifty years, left no trace. Even the secular doctor who studied Padre Pio’s wounds said that they definitely were deep enough that they could not have failed to leave scars. Nor should they have been able to heal completely and disappear after fifty years.

There were studies definitely done on Padre Pio’s wounds, as well as those of Therese Neumann, Blessed Alexandrina and others. The evidence from these investigations is highly valuable. Therese Neumann and Blessed Alexandrina went without food or water, except the Eucharist, for decades. Doctors took them into empty rooms and put them under 24 hour surveillance by trusted nurses for weeks, and found that they could live without losing weight, without drink or food, for impossibly long periods of time, taking nothing but the Eucharist. They passed on the results of their studies.

The Church has accepted these results. As the Vatican has written about her:
The Vatican:

On 27 March 1942, a new phase began for Alexandrina which would continue for 13 years and seven months until her death. She received no nourishment of any kind except the Holy Eucharist, at one point weighing as few as 33 kilos (approximately 73 pounds).

Medical doctors remained baffled by this phenomenon and began to conduct various tests on Alexandrina, acting in a very cold and hostile way towards her. This increased her suffering and humiliation, but she remembered the words that Jesus himself spoke to her one day: “You will very rarely receive consolation… I want that while your heart is filled with suffering, on your lips there is a smile”.

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20040425_da-costa_en.html

 

[Gordon_Sims]

It’s not just atheists who disbelieve miracles. I was talking with a Catholic friend about various religious topics, and when the talk turned to miracles he laughed and said, “You don’t really believe that stuff, do you?” I told him about a lady I know who, as a child, was diagnosed with cancer. I forget the exact type, but it was a rare form of leukemia that typically only struck much older adults, and had a 80-90% mortality rate. She went through months of chemo and radiation to no avail, and continued to get worse. The doctors, in fact, had told her parents that the treatments were almost as likely to kill her. Her parents eventually took to staying at her bedside 24 hours a day, much of that time spent in prayer. The multiple rounds of chemo and radiation, as well as a bone marrow transplant, hadn’t done anything more than make her miserable, so her parents asked the doctors to stop treatment. They kept up their praying, though, and a week after the treatments stopped, the doctors were shocked to find that the cancer had quit spreading. Within a month, her body was cancer free, and she’s been in remission for almost 30 years. The doctors at the time could offer no explanation, and one even referred to it as a miracle. My non-believing Catholic friend, who isn’t a doctor, told me that it was likely the chemo and radiation that cured her, and that the prayer had nothing to do with it. He assured me that the doctors were wrong, though, and that there was a perfectly rational explanation.

I should also point out that my friend was just as positive that the doctors were plain ignorant when they told the girl’s parents that the cancer treatments had rendered her permanently and irrevocably sterile, regardless of her inexplicable recovery. They explained to them that the extreme levels of chemo and lengthy radiation treatments meant that they would never have grandchildren. While they’d said the cancer was 80-90% terminal–leaving a slight opening to pin her recovery strictly on her prematurely canceled treatments–each of the doctors was 100% certain that she had no hope of ever bearing children. Not a day goes by that I don’t thank God that this diagnosis also failed to come to fruition, since, to date, that girl has given me four little miracles of our own.

 

[punisherthunder]

*Bump

I talked with a guy at work who’s a atheist. I’ve tried talking about miracles, but he is a very
“science heavy” guy. Anything and everything can be explained with science blah blah.
And if you argue that there was no scientific way for a miracle to happen, then he turns the conversation into “well this was hidden or that was hidden”. It just goes from one extreme scenario to the next.

Wasn’t the story of Lazarus and the rich man the same thing? Rich man goes to hell and tells Abraham to send someone to warn his earthly brothers and Abraham tells him that if they didn’t believe the prophets on Earth now, then chances are they wouldn’t believe someone from the dead either!

No matter how stubborn some atheists are, I will continue to argue/annoy them with the miracles from our Lord that they cannot deny!

 

[ccmnxc]

I don’t know why militant atheists scare you. They are good at formal debate, I agree. However, they claim God isn’t needed to make the universe. They may believe the Big Bang Theory, in which the odds of matter, space, earth, etc. coming together is so unlikely that it requires far more faith to believe there was no Ceator (think of a number inconceivably small). They can also believe things like the multi-verse theory in which there is no evidence and porbably never will be. Don’t worry about them. They are blind.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t know why militant atheists scare you. They are good at formal debate, I agree. However, they claim God isn’t needed to make the universe. They may believe the Big Bang Theory, in which the odds of matter, space, earth, etc. coming together is so unlikely that it requires far more faith to believe there was no Ceator (think of a number inconceivably small). They can also believe things like the multi-verse theory in which there is no evidence and porbably never will be. Don’t worry about them. They are blind.

Just a small note, the church has nothing against the Big Bang theory, your statement, at least to me, made it sound like the two were somehow in opposition. In fact, it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the theory.

Also, on a similar note, even if there were a multi-verse, it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God; which is impossible at either end, at last until we’re dead. That’s why we’re called to believe in God, not to “Know 100% that he exists”. We as Catholics do “know” that God is real, but we know it through faith and through God’s gifts, not empirically, as an atheist would like to “know” it. Personally, I’ll be a little surprised if the multi-verse theory is wrong. If you were an omnipotent, limitless, all powerful being, would -you- be contented with just one possible reality? (Note, I don’t believe that the church has said anything about the theory. If they have and my views or misplaced or in opposition, please let me know.)

What many atheists seem to misinterpret is the goal of the church. They believe that the church is all about “You have to do this, period, you have no choice. Empirical, logical, scientific evidence be damned.” This is not the case, the church has always embraced the gift of free will. We recognize that many people abuse free will, and we acknowledge that there will be consequences for our actions in the afterlife. These are matters of theology. When it comes to what matters to the typical atheist, matters of science, they should rejoice and be joined with the Catholic church. Throughout history the Church has devoted plentiful resources and time to furthering the understanding of the natural world and universe that God has so graciously given us.

As to the question.

Atheists generally reject miracles for the same reason many Catholics reject miracles; they’re easy to fake / misinterpret. I personally believe that there have been innumerable miracles. The fact that I wake up each morning fully intact is a miracle so far as I’m concerned; but I do not believe that everything that is viewed as a miracle is genuinely one. God created the universe, and the laws that govern it. Maybe every now and then something triggers a true, honest to God miracle (Fatima, for example, or several stigmata cases). Other times, miracles are probably just misinterpretations of natural phenomenon. Believing that has no affect on my faith, because my faith is apart from miracles. When they are true, they bolster my faith; when they aren’t it doesn’t really matter because the underlying reality of God’s universe is still the same as it ever was. An atheist looks at a miracle as a chance to “disprove” God, as though God were somehow reliant on his outwards signs of power; a Catholic looks at a miracle skeptically, hoping that it is the work of God, but not basing their faith on it. God, I imagine, looks at miracles the same way a parent would look at getting their child something they really want/need; as a sign of love.

(Sorry, I rambled a bit, apologies if that was hard to follow)

 

[ExChristian]

Militant atheists have come close to ruining my faith before eg Dawkins and Hitchens.

One thing that kept me faithful was miracles, how can any atheist ignore the miracles of Padre Pio, Fatima, Guadeloupe, Lourdes and the miracles of the Eucharist?

Why should we atheists believe something without evidence? I don’t believe in these miracles for the very same reason that you Catholics don’t believe the miracles of other religions.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why should we atheists believe something without evidence? I don’t believe in these miracles for the very same reason that you Catholics don’t believe the miracles of other religions.

Actually, Catholics will recognize the miracles of other faiths under certain circumstances, the first and most important of which being they it pass all the same tests and rigors that one within the Catholic faith goes through. God does not discriminate, and loves all equally. Being part of the “right” or “wrong” religion has nothing to do with God’s love. We are all equally unworthy of it as human beings. We all sin, we all fall. God still loves all of us, and wishes us to do well in life and live in Him. So, why would He deny someone a miracle based on that person’s religion.

I would ask you why the devoted faith of billions of people across the world does not constitute a form of evidence. Why do the good works we do in the name of God, in the way we strive to support and help all people, not constitute proof of a rational and object truth guiding us?

 

[James224]

Militant atheists have come close to ruining my faith before eg Dawkins and Hitchens.

One thing that kept me faithful was miracles, how can any atheist ignore the miracles of Padre Pio, Fatima, Guadeloupe, Lourdes and the miracles of the Eucharist?

Atheism is a worldview and kind of a religion in the sense that they believe in many things they haven’t seen yet they deny miracles that they may have seen but can’t explain. Part of this worldview is to try and explain away the miracles yet they believe in many everyday things that they haven’t seen. For example, I once asked one if Russia existed and he said yes. I asked him how he knew and he said, well, I’ve seen images and read about it. I said yes but you haven’t actually seen it! This is how most of us know things - second hand or by an eyewitness. I asked him if he knew all about science and he said no. Well, I said, how do you know it’s true? I said that he believed in things that he hadn’t proven himself. And on and on. I think it’s just as much a faith to think that there is no God or miracles as it is to believe in them. This is why we have to defend our faith with them using Christian Philosophy as well as the faith itself. I think dealing with atheists you have to ask some questions too. Don’t let them off the hook. Ask them why suffering is in the world, etc. I think this will give you more confidence because you will realize that they don’t have many answers.

 

[ExChristian]

Atheism is a worldview and kind of a religion in the sense that they believe in many things they haven’t seen yet they deny miracles that they may have seen but can’t explain. Part of this worldview is to try and explain away the miracles yet they believe in many everyday things that they haven’t seen. For example, I once asked one if Russia existed and he said yes. I asked him how he knew and he said, well, I’ve seen images and read about it. I said yes but you haven’t actually seen it! This is how most of us know things - second hand or by an eyewitness. I asked him if he knew all about science and he said no. Well, I said, how do you know it’s true? I said that he believed in things that he hadn’t proven himself. And on and on. I think it’s just as much a faith to think that there is no God or miracles as it is to believe in them. This is why we have to defend our faith with them using Christian Philosophy as well as the faith itself. I think dealing with atheists you have to ask some questions too. Don’t let them off the hook. Ask them why suffering is in the world, etc. I think this will give you more confidence because you will realize that they don’t have many answers.

Atheism is not even close to religion. Atheist is a person who does not believe in god(s). Nothing else. Indeed, believe. You can’t unprove God 100%, but you can be convinced he doesn’t exist.

And even though many atheists believe scientific things, that has as much to do with atheism as a christian liking football has to do with christianity. There’s no dogma in atheism, there’s no holy book, there’s nothing like that. Bald is not a haircolor. Disbelief is not a belief.

How do I know Russia is true? How do you know anything is 100% true, except your own mind? You don’t, but we are forced to trust our senses and brain. Anyone who questions gravity can jump off a cliff and see what happens.

 

[James224]

Atheism is not even close to religion. Atheist is a person who does not believe in god(s). Nothing else. Indeed, believe. You can’t unprove God 100%, but you can be convinced he doesn’t exist.

And even though many atheists believe scientific things, that has as much to do with atheism as a christian liking football has to do with christianity. There’s no dogma in atheism, there’s no holy book, there’s nothing like that. Bald is not a haircolor. Disbelief is not a belief.

How do I know Russia is true? How do you know anything is 100% true, except your own mind? You don’t, but we are forced to trust our senses and brain. Anyone who questions gravity can jump off a cliff and see what happens.

Of course, I disagree. We use our senses and brain and there are Christian Scientists so what makes the difference? A worldview or belief system. You can use Rationalism to Skepticism all you want but the fact is you can’t shoehorn everything into science. To do this is like saying that if it isn’t on tv it doesn’t exist.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Of course, I disagree. We use our senses and brain and there are Christian Scientists so what makes the difference? A worldview or belief system. You can use Rationalism to Skepticism all you want but the fact is you can’t shoehorn everything into science. To do this is like saying that if it isn’t on tv it doesn’t exist.

I’d be careful with that argument. I know more than a few people who fully believe that if it wasn’t reported on CNN, it didn’t happen.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Just a small note, the church has nothing against the Big Bang theory, your statement, at least to me, made it sound like the two were somehow in opposition. In fact, it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the theory.

I think that this is what he was saying; they believe that the big bang “just happened,” whereas we believe that God, who is outside of time, was responsible for the big bang.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Also, on a similar note, even if there were a multi-verse, it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God; which is impossible at either end, at last until we’re dead. That’s why we’re called to believe in God, not to “Know 100% that he exists”. We as Catholics do “know” that God is real, but we know it through faith and through God’s gifts, not empirically, as an atheist would like to “know” it.

I don’t think he was suggesting that multi-verse theory disproves the existence of God. He was saying that scientists are willing to believe in things as arbitrary and speculative as multiverse theory but not in matters of faith, thus making them sound inconsistent in their rigorous anti-faith belief. Some scientists will say that multiverse theory explains the existence of life because since every possible combination of outcomes exists, there must exist an infinite number of universes where just the right bits of matter came together to form the first cell.

Personally, I’ll be a little surprised if the multi-verse theory is wrong. If you were an omnipotent, limitless, all powerful being, would -you- be contented with just one possible reality? (Note, I don’t believe that the church has said anything about the theory. If they have and my views or misplaced or in opposition, please let me know.)

Really??? An infinite upon infinite number realities consisting of every possible set of circumstances and outcome of events? Can you even imagine how there could be that many branches of reality? I’m talking about EVERY POSSIBLE outcome of events. As in, if you can think of any turn of events on a whim, that reality exists. You find it hard not to believe in such a theory? It sounds pretty bogus to me!

 

[CompSciGuy]

Every intelligent person, when having observed the known world has to come to a conclusion about it and about the beliefs which they have grown up with. Usually it goes something like this: they see the need to doubt all things until proven and come to understand how science can explain so many phenomena, and since nature seems to be able to advance itself just fine, and since there isn’t any strong empirical evidence for a God, they reject belief. The other group looks at the world and universe and, like the former group, is filled with awe and wonder. They believe that the things of nature and the universe tie into the human experience, and see a necessity for a permanent intelligence present in the universe around them which transcends time and space. Unlike the atheists, they believe that absolute proof is not absolutely necessary for belief, that some things can be inferred by way of reason and implication, and still others taken on faith, and there isn’t anything wrong with that. They often have a hunger for spiritual practice and choose faith as a means to fulfill this hunger.

I happen to be of the latter group. I think the main reason why I believe in God is because of an issue that I refer to as “matter versus substance” (poorly named). It is a frustrating thing to discuss this with an atheist because the atheist focuses so much on the material aspect of the universe and virtually ignores the substantial - that is, the concept of meaning. By substance I refer primarily to the existence of meaning and purpose. Blind matter does not conceive such things as meaning and purpose; a rock does not have an abstract thought. But the human mind does. One may argue that the concept of meaning is something that is generated within the human mind and is applied to material things. This is problematic, because if the essence of what “meaning and purpose” is didn’t exist objectively, then how could it exist within the human mind? After all, if inanimate matter, which cannot make sense of the world around it, is said to have blindly produced man, who can make sense of the world around him, then this property would have to have come from somewhere. I would suggest that this property (and yes it is a property) must have always existed, from the beginning of time, and could not have sprung into existence all by itself.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t think he was suggesting that multi-verse theory disproves the existence of God. He was saying that scientists are willing to believe in things as arbitrary and speculative as multiverse theory but not in matters of faith, thus making them sound inconsistent in their rigorous anti-faith belief. Some scientists will say that multiverse theory explains the existence of life because since every possible combination of outcomes exists, there must exist an infinite number of universes where just the right bits of matter came together to form the first cell.

Really??? An infinite upon infinite number realities consisting of every possible set of circumstances and outcome of events? Can you even imagine how there could be that many branches of reality? I’m talking about EVERY POSSIBLE outcome of events. As in, if you can think of any turn of events on a whim, that reality exists. You find it hard not to believe in such a theory? It sounds pretty bogus to me!

Ok, I misspoke. I don’t believe in an infinite number of universes, but I’d be surprised if we were the -only- one. But like I said, that has nothing to do with religion, it’s just my personal perception. As an infinite being, I imagine that I would get bored with just one universe, that’s not to say that God would. We may be the only universe, and that would be perfectly fine; but we may not be, and I think that is also perfectly fine. It’s not like it’d cause theological problems, or that we should be jealous of the other universe; as a being of infinite love and capacity, it’s not like we’re competing for God’s attention

 

[CompSciGuy]

Ok, I misspoke. * I don’t believe in an infinite number of universes*, but I’d be surprised if we were the -only- one. But like I said, that has nothing to do with religion, it’s just my personal perception. As an infinite being, I imagine that I would get bored with just one universe, that’s not to say that God would. We may be the only universe, and that would be perfectly fine; but we may not be, and I think that is also perfectly fine. It’s not like it’d cause theological problems, or that we should be jealous of the other universe; as a being of infinite love and capacity, it’s not like we’re competing for God’s attention

Hmm… I thought this was the essence of multiverse theory?? or maybe I’m wrong. Such can’t be true in the Christian case, because then there would exist anti-Christian universes, that is, universes where the objective truths of Christianity are actually false.

 

[ccmnxc]

Just a small note, the church has nothing against the Big Bang theory, your statement, at least to me, made it sound like the two were somehow in opposition. In fact, it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the theory.

Also, on a similar note, even if there were a multi-verse, it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God; which is impossible at either end, at last until we’re dead. That’s why we’re called to believe in God, not to “Know 100% that he exists”. We as Catholics do “know” that God is real, but we know it through faith and through God’s gifts, not empirically, as an atheist would like to “know” it. Personally, I’ll be a little surprised if the multi-verse theory is wrong. If you were an omnipotent, limitless, all powerful being, would -you- be contented with just one possible reality? (Note, I don’t believe that the church has said anything about the theory. If they have and my views or misplaced or in opposition, please let me know.)

What many atheists seem to misinterpret is the goal of the church. They believe that the church is all about “You have to do this, period, you have no choice. Empirical, logical, scientific evidence be damned.” This is not the case, the church has always embraced the gift of free will. We recognize that many people abuse free will, and we acknowledge that there will be consequences for our actions in the afterlife. These are matters of theology. When it comes to what matters to the typical atheist, matters of science, they should rejoice and be joined with the Catholic church. Throughout history the Church has devoted plentiful resources and time to furthering the understanding of the natural world and universe that God has so graciously given us.

My Bad. Sorry if I sounded like they were in conflict. I totally believe the Big Bang.

 

[Cone]

Militant atheists have come close to ruining my faith before eg Dawkins and Hitchens.

One thing that kept me faithful was miracles, how can any atheist ignore the miracles of Padre Pio, Fatima, Guadeloupe, Lourdes and the miracles of the Eucharist?

You have to understand that the atheist is a TRUE non-believer. He starts out with the assumption that there is no God. One’s logical analysis has to be consistent with one’s assumptions. Therefore ANY evidence of a miracle will dismissed as having a natural cause, no matter how improbable the natural cause is.

Another term for this is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning: 1. There are no such things as miracles. 2. Any evidence of a miracle must be false or have some natural explanation, because there are no such things as miracles.