Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[idav]

I'm willing to use your terminology, but the issue still remains: science, by definition, can only examine phenomena that are entirely contained on the physical plane.

More accurately we can examine what interacts with the physical plane and if it indeed interacts with the physical plane then it is natural not super natural. Further if something can't interact with the physical plane and isn't detectable then how could we ever experience any of it?

 

[idav]

That's true less and less often, actually:

This picture makes a very strong point about my thoughts on miracles as of late. Like the movie "Paranormal Activity". If anyone really got video like that in the movie (which looked like home cam type) it would be all over the news as proof of paranormal entities. Everyone has camera these days and still no proof.

 

[outhouse]

That's fine but I was just allowing for the possibility next century that science may expand to include the study of all planes.

No such thing exist at this time, outside imagination.


Maybe in a 100 years the yellow ducky I think about will rule the world.

 

[outhouse]

More accurately we can examine what interacts with the physical plane and if it indeed interacts with the physical plane then it is natural not super natural.

So far so good.

Further if something can't interact with the physical plane and isn't detectable then how could we ever experience any of it?

We cannot experience imagination and mythology of another person.

 

[technomage]

More accurately we can examine what interacts with the physical plane and if it indeed interacts with the physical plane then it is natural not super natural.

Only sort of.

Scenario 1: Let us suppose for a moment that an entity residing on one of the other planes caused a phenomenon on the physical plane. Let's take an easy case--a forest fire is threatening a shrine, and a thunderstorm extinguishes the fire. If this is caused from one of the other planes, and is caused in a naturalistic way (we can see the low pressure center developing a couple of weeks before, the storm follows the prevailing weather patterns, all of that), we will _never_ have any data that scientists can use to say "This storm was caused by an entity outside of the physical plane." The storm looks entirely natural, and science will simply point to the natural, "physical-plane" chain of cause and effect.

Scenario 2: Now, let us suppose a different situation occurs differently--a sudden thunderstorm appears out of nowhere, with no cause on the physical plane, and extinguishes the fire. A phenomenon like this can be examined by science, but since there was no causality on the physical plane, science is helpless to determine why it occurred.

The first kind of event I have heard of repeatedly--for someone who does not already believe, there is no evidence that a believer can point to and say "Look, this was a miracle." It simply nooks like a natural event.

The second kind of event is entirely different. It is obvious that there is no physical-plane causality for the phenomenon. Science is helpless ... BUT we can, as human beings, step outside of science. We _may_ be able to use other methods to determine what happened ... but science will not avail us in that situation.

Now, having said all that, I will also note that I have never seen or heard a reliable example of Scenario 2. I have to admit, I would be fairly skeptical as to the veracity of the claim. But I would definitely want it investigated, and would be interested in the results, regardless of what they are.

 

[outhouse]

Everyone has camera these days and still no proof.

The word you may be looking for is perceived.

What is perceived as paranormal activity.


TV shows and movies are made for one purpose, making money.


Its not science. Scientifically paranormal activity is nothing more then human perception with ZERO evidence.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can history be enough to accept any miracles as anything supernatural? Where are the miracles that are breaking laws of nature at these days? Our natural world really doesn't seem to have a case for the supernatural, or it is just plain natural.

The lack of objective recording of historical events throughout most of history provides excellent cover and mechanism for the creation of "miracles." Additionally, people seem to have a strange propensity to accept something fantastical as having actually ocurred if it happened in the distant past.

 

[Ingledsva]

Can history be enough to accept any miracles as anything supernatural? Where are the miracles that are breaking laws of nature at these days? Our natural world really doesn't seem to have a case for the supernatural, or it is just plain natural.

The following article takes a pretty educated look at the debate for the supernatural. I will quote the conclusion in case TLDR syndrome kicks in.

It seems to me, therefore, that the lesson to be learned from the classical debate over miracles, a lesson that has been reinforced by contemporary scientific and philosophical thought, is that the presupposition of the impossibility of miracles should, contrary to the assumption of nineteenth and for the most part twentieth century biblical criticism, play no role in determining the historicity of any event. While many scholars still operate under such an assumption, there seems now to be a growing recognition that such a presupposition is illegitimate. The presupposition against the possibility of miracles survives in theology only as a hangover from an earlier Deist age and ought to be once for all abandoned.

The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective | Reasonable Faith

He has big problems with the argument, just look at one sentence segment (in red above.)

He basis his argument on something that isn't even true.


I for instance don't believe in old miracle stories, because they have no proof, - and not because of "presupposition against the possibility of miracles."


Obviously things can happen that our feeble minds think are miracles, but are just superior technology - for instance.



*

 

[idav]

He has big problems with the argument, just look at one sentence segment (in red above.)

He basis his argument on something that isn't even true.


I for instance don't believe in old miracle stories, because they have no proof, - and not because of "presupposition against the possibility of miracles."


Obviously things can happen that our feeble minds think are miracles, but are just superior technology - for instance.



*

He is for miracles the way I read it. Kinda hard to tell sometime reading through the thing. He says

a lesson that has been reinforced by contemporary scientific and philosophical thought, is that the presupposition of the impossibility of miracles should.................play no role in determining the historicity of any event.

IOW it sounds like he is saying that not having miracles should not sway us in thinking it didn't happen in the past. I'm not sure I buy that.

 

[George-ananda]

And an interesting fact about "miracle healing" is that it is always of the type that could be easily explained by natural causes--e.g. the remission of a tumor--or could be easily faked. We never get the regeneration of a lost limb. People believe these stories only because they want to believe them.

This is very typical of what I hear from atheists (the limb thing, easily faked, easily explained away, natural phenomena, people in need of belief, etc).

We just had a thread a couple weeks ago on a canonized saint, that although not a limb, allowed a person to see see with no working eyes.

More dramatic were the events surrounding Giovanni Savino. He and his wife, Rosa, became devoted spiritual children of Padre Pio. In February, 1949, Giovanni was working on an addition to the friary at San Giovanni Rotondo — Padre Pio’s residence. One day, after Mass, Padre Pio blessed him as was customary, but suddenly embraced him exclaiming, “Courage, Giovanni, I’m praying to the Lord that you might not be killed.” Padre Pio repeated this unnerving warning for the next two days. The day following the third warning, February 15, Giovanni and another worker had placed a charge of dynamite under a boulder. When the fuse failed to ignite the charge, Giovanni went over to see what the problem was. The dynamite blew up in his face, which was badly mangled. His left eye was filled with “many foreign bodies” and his right eye was nothing but a “bloody pulp.” The doctors felt that they could save his left eye, but determined that nothing could be done for the right one that had been destroyed.

Padre Pio asked everyone to pray for Savino. He exposed the Blessed Sacrament and prayed before It for three days. The friar was even heard to offer one of his eyes for the return of Giovanni’s sight “because he’s the father of a family.” On the morning of February 25, Savino smelled a sweet fragrance (a frequent accompaniment to the action of Padre Pio’s intervention). He felt three slaps on his forehead and understood it to be Padre Pio next to his bed. Later that morning the ophthalmologist came to examine his left eye — the one he felt he could save. Suddenly Savino exclaimed that he could see. When the doctor asked him to turn his head so that Giovanni could see him with his left eye, Giovanni exclaimed that it was his right eye he could see with. The doctor insisted that the right one had been totally destroyed and that he must be mistaken. However, there was no mistake. Giovanni had completely regained the sight in his right eye, although it remained nothing but “a mess” until his death twenty-five years later at the age of sixty. The left eye never recovered. Giovanni Savino literally saw without eyes. The ophthalmologist, who was an atheist at the time, converted to the Catholic Faith “because,” he said, “this has happened right in front of me.”

 

[Ingledsva]

He is for miracles the way I read it. Kinda hard to tell sometime reading through the thing. He says IOW it sounds like he is saying that not having miracles should not sway us in thinking it didn't happen in the past. I'm not sure I buy that.

But part of his argument is -


" The presupposition against the possibility of miracles survives in theology only as a hangover from an earlier Deist age and ought to be once for all abandoned."


To assume this is the reason modern people might not believe in miracles - is just wrong.


Most Modern people require proof of a miracle - before they are going to believe it.



*

 

[idav]

But part of his argument is -


" The presupposition against the possibility of miracles survives in theology only as a hangover from an earlier Deist age and ought to be once for all abandoned."


To assume this is the reason modern people might not believe in miracles - is just wrong.


Most Modern people require proof of a miracle - before they are going to believe it.



*

In the article the reasons are presented and they are good arguments from various view points. He is saying their arguments are old news but I wouldnt agree. And I agree there should be proof, not just historical accounts that can't be verified as a truth. And if the arguments and lack of proof isnt enough, we should rely on possible myths?

 

[George-ananda]

No such thing exist at this time, outside imagination.


Maybe in a 100 years the yellow ducky I think about will rule the world.

Outhouse, What? No Facepalm for me this time? I must be getting a little smarter then.

 

[Copernicus]

This is very typical of what I hear from atheists (the limb thing, easily faked, easily explained away, natural phenomena, people in need of belief, etc).

We just had a thread a couple weeks ago on a canonized saint, that although not a limb, allowed a person to see see with no working eyes.

More dramatic were the events surrounding Giovanni Savino. He and his wife, Rosa, became devoted spiritual children of Padre Pio. In February, 1949, Giovanni was working on an addition to the friary at San Giovanni Rotondo — Padre Pio’s residence. One day, after Mass, Padre Pio blessed him as was customary, but suddenly embraced him exclaiming, “Courage, Giovanni, I’m praying to the Lord that you might not be killed.” Padre Pio repeated this unnerving warning for the next two days. The day following the third warning, February 15, Giovanni and another worker had placed a charge of dynamite under a boulder. When the fuse failed to ignite the charge, Giovanni went over to see what the problem was. The dynamite blew up in his face, which was badly mangled. His left eye was filled with “many foreign bodies” and his right eye was nothing but a “bloody pulp.” The doctors felt that they could save his left eye, but determined that nothing could be done for the right one that had been destroyed.

Padre Pio asked everyone to pray for Savino. He exposed the Blessed Sacrament and prayed before It for three days. The friar was even heard to offer one of his eyes for the return of Giovanni’s sight “because he’s the father of a family.” On the morning of February 25, Savino smelled a sweet fragrance (a frequent accompaniment to the action of Padre Pio’s intervention). He felt three slaps on his forehead and understood it to be Padre Pio next to his bed. Later that morning the ophthalmologist came to examine his left eye — the one he felt he could save. Suddenly Savino exclaimed that he could see. When the doctor asked him to turn his head so that Giovanni could see him with his left eye, Giovanni exclaimed that it was his right eye he could see with. The doctor insisted that the right one had been totally destroyed and that he must be mistaken. However, there was no mistake. Giovanni had completely regained the sight in his right eye, although it remained nothing but “a mess” until his death twenty-five years later at the age of sixty. The left eye never recovered. Giovanni Savino literally saw without eyes. The ophthalmologist, who was an atheist at the time, converted to the Catholic Faith “because,” he said, “this has happened right in front of me.”

George, do you believe everything you read, or just those stories that confirm your beliefs? In other words, what convinces you that this story accurately reports a historical event? And do these miracles happen only to Christians, or do they happen to convert atheists to any religion in the vicinity of the alleged miracle?

 

[George-ananda]

George, do you believe everything you read, or just those stories that confirm your beliefs?

I don't believe everything I read. I read many things, consider all argumentation and form my most intelligent view of what is going on.

In other words, what convinces you that this story accurately reports a historical event?

On any one particular story, being 100% convinced is impossible unless it happened to me. This story I would only consider highly likely to be a true miracle.

Why?

* The quantity and quality of miracle and other paranormal claims has made me conclude that our 'normal' understanding of the world must be incomplete in DRAMATIC ways.

* The quantity and quality of miracle/paranormal claims surrounding the individual central to this particular story.

* The teachings of the many masters and sages I revere of the eastern (Indian/Hindu) school of thought that teach of things that are beyond our 'normal' understanding. The evidence of the paranormal/miraculous happens to dovetail with their teachings

And do these miracles happen only to Christians, or do they happen to convert atheists to any religion in the vicinity of the alleged miracle?

The lesson is these things happen in all traditions. The Universe is above our partisan divisions.

 

[idav]

I don't believe everything I read. I read many things, consider all argumentation and form my most intelligent view of what is going on.




On any one particular story, being 100% convinced is impossible unless it happened to me. This story I would only consider highly likely to be a true miracle.

Why?

* The quantity and quality of miracle and other paranormal claims has made me conclude that our 'normal' understanding of the world must be incomplete in DRAMATIC ways.

* The quantity and quality of miracle/paranormal claims surrounding the individual central to this particular story.

* The teachings of the many masters and sages I revere of the eastern (Indian/Hindu) school of thought that teach of things that are beyond our 'normal' understanding. The evidence of the paranormal/miraculous happens to dovetail with their teachings





The lesson is these things happen in all traditions. The Universe is above our partisan divisions.

Correlation with what we describe isnt surprising. They have to be right about the mechanics since we say science describes the 'how'. For one, rebirth vs reincarnation is a strong contention.

 

[George-ananda]

Correlation with what we describe isnt surprising. They have to be right about the mechanics since we say science describes the 'how'. For one, rebirth vs reincarnation is a strong contention.

The claimed mechanisms are beyond science's current ability to test.

At this time science can not address these things.

However, my personal beliefs can consider evidence that science can't address. That the consciousness of advanced masters can reach beyond the limits of science's current technology is one thing I have come to accept after objective consideration.

 

[idav]

The claimed mechanisms are beyond science's current ability to test.

At this time science can not address these things.

However, my personal beliefs can consider evidence that science can't address. That the consciousness of advanced masters can reach beyond the limits of science's current technology is one thing I have come to accept after objective consideration.

Their are masters in all the enlightenment religions regardless of how they think its happening. What is happening isnt a question, how is the question. Buddhism has a naturalistic atheistic answer that collaberates with science.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't believe everything I read. I read many things, consider all argumentation and form my most intelligent view of what is going on.

Most of us would like to believe to believe that we are objective and fair-minded, but it would be foolish to rely too heavily on that opinion.

On any one particular story, being 100% convinced is impossible unless it happened to me. This story I would only consider highly likely to be a true miracle.

Why?

* The quantity and quality of miracle and other paranormal claims has made me conclude that our 'normal' understanding of the world must be incomplete in DRAMATIC ways.

A great many people who believe this would still take your anecdote with a huge grain of salt.

* The quantity and quality of miracle/paranormal claims surrounding the individual central to this particular story.

Really? You gave no link to your source, although you mentioned "a thread a couple of weeks ago on a canonized saint". Sorry, George, but I cannot take your word on this, despite your high opinion of your objectivity and analytical skills. Do you have any personal experience relating to this particular anecdote, or are you just relying on the investigation conducted by the RCC? It strikes me that they may occasionally get things wrong in such investigations. :sarcastic

* The teachings of the many masters and sages I revere of the eastern (Indian/Hindu) school of thought that teach of things that are beyond our 'normal' understanding. The evidence of the paranormal/miraculous happens to dovetail with their teachings

Like your first bullet, this one is totally unrelated to the reported incident.

The lesson is these things happen in all traditions. The Universe is above our partisan divisions.

I agree that claims of miracles happen in all traditions and that the "universe is above our partisan divisions". Those observations do not really support the claim that any particular miracle happened. They are compatible with the view that people spread rumors and believe what they want to believe. And believers are no less "partisan" than skeptics.

The claimed mechanisms are beyond science's current ability to test.

How could you possibly support this generalization? If a physical event occurs, it should be amenable to empirical investigation.

At this time science can not address these things.

You can repeat the unsupported claim all you like, but it remains unsupported.

However, my personal beliefs can consider evidence that science can't address. That the consciousness of advanced masters can reach beyond the limits of science's current technology is one thing I have come to accept after objective consideration.

You are entitled to your personal opinions, but not your personal facts. All you are doing here is begging the question.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This is very typical of what I hear from atheists (the limb thing, easily faked, easily explained away, natural phenomena, people in need of belief, etc).

You hear it so often because it is the most powerful argument against miracles.

Can you think of a reason why healers can cast out tumors, return eyesight, abate a fever... but apparently cannot regrow a missing limb?

What is your best explanation regarding why miracle-doers cannot or will not regrow missing limbs?