Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on April 10, 2016, 08:52:29 AM
-
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5704/a-personal-statement-from-the-archbishop-of-canterbury
A very powerful anbd gracious statement, which highlights the fact that genetic history needn't control our lives.
-
It wasn't that long ago that society would have demanded his resignation as a result of this. Isn't it a good thing that society has moved on, Hope?
-
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5704/a-personal-statement-from-the-archbishop-of-canterbury
A very powerful anbd gracious statement, which highlights the fact that genetic history needn't control our lives.
I think the AofC has handled, what must have been a very difficult discovery, with great dignity.
-
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5704/a-personal-statement-from-the-archbishop-of-canterbury
A very powerful anbd gracious statement, which highlights the fact that genetic history needn't control our lives.
I can see why it's a big deal for him, but does it really justify the headlines it is getting?
-
I can see why it's a big deal for him, but does it really justify the headlines it is getting?
I had the same thought too: seems to me that this is a private matter that has no place in the public domain.
-
I had the same thought too: seems to me that this is a private matter that has no place in the public domain.
I don't disagree at all, but this whole thing has been a media concoction from the word go - apparently the Torygraph approached Welby after carrying out research into his family background.
Why, goodness only knows.
-
More to the point, why on earth did he agree to DNA testing as a result? It's a middle class version of The Jeremy Kyle Show.
-
More to the point, why on earth did he agree to DNA testing as a result? It's a middle class version of The Jeremy Kyle Show.
Now there's an edition of that odious programme I could be induced to watch, with sufficient remuneration.
"On today's show we've got Justin, who's sixty and from Kent ..."
-
I had the same thought too: seems to me that this is a private matter that has no place in the public domain.
If it had been (for example) Prince Harry, then there might be a public interest argument - but does anyone really give a damn about the ABofC's parentage?
-
I can see why it's a big deal for him, but does it really justify the headlines it is getting?
I was very surprised that it had the number one slot on the BBC News yesterday, as it is a personal matter for the AofC, not a world shaking event.
-
I was very surprised that it had the number one slot on the BBC News yesterday, as it is a personal matter for the AofC, not a world shaking event.
It has shaken somebody's world - that's why I'm really very uncomfortable with this sort of thing being splashed across the papers and the Web. It ought to have been a matter for the Archbish, Mrs Archbish and the Welbyettes to come to terms with in private, in their own time.
-
I agree. It affects nobody outside of his family at all.
-
Naked prurience, like so much of what is fobbed off on us as 'news' these days. Max Mosley being the prime example.
-
To an extent. I think in this case there is also a big dollop of morality policing going on. I suspect that the Torygraph wants people to question Welby's background and therefore his suitability for his job.
-
Dear Floo,
It's news, a story, a narrative, we all love a good narrative, the AoC is out there, not like you and me, the little people, nobody would give a fig if they found out my real father was wee Archie from down the street, names have been dropped, Churchill, mention anything about Churchill, no matter how loose the connection people will want to read about it.
Also the man is the top guy in a large religious organisation but he has a flawed past, he is human just like you and me.
But ( always a but ) compare this to the other headline we all have read about, Mr Cameron is a dirty tax avoiding swindler, but then again, he is only human, a lying cheating tax avoiding human, but ( three buts, should be a law against it ) that is only my human opinion.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Floo,
It's news, a story, a narrative, we all love a good narrative, the AoC is out there, not like you and me, the little people, nobody would give a fig if they found out my real father was wee Archie from down the street, names have been dropped, Churchill, mention anything about Churchill, no matter how loose the connection people will want to read about it.
Also the man is the top guy in a large religious organisation but he has a flawed past, he is human just like you and me.
But ( always a but ) compare this to the other headline we all have read about, Mr Cameron is a dirty tax avoiding swindler, but then again, he is only human, a lying cheating tax avoiding human, but ( three buts, should be a law against it ) that is only my human opinion.
Gonnagle.
I happen to think Welby is one of the good guys, :) but the PM has a much more prestigious position in the country than a mere cleric, however high up he is in the CofE chain of command.
-
I can see why it's a big deal for him, but does it really justify the headlines it is getting?
It wasn't him that wanted the publicity, LA. He didn't start the ball rolling but, as it was going to come out anyway, he wanted to make a statement.
I agree with floo and others that he has handled such a personal business, gone public, with tremendous dignity.
DNA profiling etc is wonderful when it comes to catching criminals and medical stuff but, honestly, a DNA database that the press can get a hold of? Is nothing private? We were discussing something akin to this on here the other day. He has an elderly mother who has had all sorts of personal stuff brought out because of this, I'm sure she didn't want that. Things she has overcome and left behind, never mind her brief liaison with the biological father of the AofC.
It's all a bit ''Eastenders''.
[/quote] Rhiannon: It wasn't that long ago that society would have demanded his resignation as a result of this. Isn't it a good thing that society has moved on, Hope? [/quote]
Not just Hope, Rhiannon, I'm sure we are all glad that society has moved on. For one thing, illegitimate children are no longer discriminated against (as if it was ever their fault anyway).
-
It wasn't him that wanted the publicity, LA. He didn't start the ball rolling but, as it was going to come out anyway, he wanted to make a statement.
I agree with floo and others that he has handled such a personal business, gone public, with tremendous dignity.
DNA profiling etc is wonderful when it comes to catching criminals and medical stuff but, honestly, a DNA database that the press can get a hold of? Is nothing private? We were discussing something akin to this on here the other day. He has an elderly mother who has had all sorts of personal stuff brought out because of this, I'm sure she didn't want that. Things she has overcome and left behind, never mind her brief liaison with the biological father of the AofC.
It's all a bit ''Eastenders''.
Rhiannon: It wasn't that long ago that society would have demanded his resignation as a result of this. Isn't it a good thing that society has moved on, Hope?
Not just Hope, Rhiannon, I'm sure we are all glad that society has moved on. For one thing, illegitimate children are no longer discriminated against (as if it was ever their fault anyway).
I'm not criticizing him (though I suppose he was asking for trouble when he agreed to the test), it's more a sad reflection on what the media regard as 'newsworthy' - and on us for buying into it!
-
I'm not criticizing him (though I suppose he was asking for trouble when he agreed to the test), it's more a sad reflection on what the media regard as 'newsworthy' - and on us for buying into it!
I agree.
-
Like others, not sure what all the fuss is about. My father wasn't actually my real father as I found out about 15 years ago. It didn't affect me particularly then or now. I didn't see it as any big deal. I still think of my dad as the person who helped bring me up, and I didn't think any less of my mother for whatever went on in her private life.
I think that quite a few people have been in a similar position, whether they know it or not.
-
Quote from: L.A. on Today at 11:29:42 AM
I'm not criticizing him (though I suppose he was asking for trouble when he agreed to the test), it's more a sad reflection on what the media regard as 'newsworthy' - and on us for buying into it!
Floo: I agree
So do I agree. Hopefully a nine day wonder (or less). Tomorrow's chip paper and all that.
-
Not just Hope, Rhiannon, I'm sure we are all glad that society has moved on. For one thing, illegitimate children are no longer discriminated against (as if it was ever their fault anyway).
....and for another thing society has moved on to allow homosexual marriage.
Hmm, not sure Hope is too happy about that? :-\
-
....and for another thing society has moved on to allow homosexual marriage.
Hmm, not sure Hope is too happy about that? :-\
Damaging to society, apparently.
Not that he's ever scrupled to state exactly why he thinks this is the case, of course ...
-
Blimey, the H subject even pops up on here :D.
-
I'm sure Hope won't mind.
-
It wasn't that long ago that society would have demanded his resignation as a result of this. Isn't it a good thing that society has moved on, Hope?
Society might have required his resignation; not sure that the church would have - after all, its not his fault that he's illegitimate. So, yes, good that society has caught up with the church in this instance.
-
I can see why it's a big deal for him, but does it really justify the headlines it is getting?
No, that's the point. It was the media who brought the issue to his and our attention in the first place - and for what purpose?
-
Also the man is the top guy in a large religious organisation but he has a flawed past, he is human just like you and me.
He has admitted to having a flawed past - but he did that long before this news broke. What flaw has it exposd?
But ( always a but ) compare this to the other headline we all have read about, Mr Cameron is a dirty tax avoiding swindler, but then again, he is only human, a lying cheating tax avoiding human, but ( three buts, should be a law against it ) that is only my human opinion.
Interestingly, Gonners, he has done nothing that the law doesn't allow him to do and the broadsheet financial pages encourage us all to do if we have the money to do it with.
-
Damaging to society, apparently.
Not that he's ever scrupled to state exactly why he thinks this is the case, of course ...
I have explained in detail why I believe this - but since I was suspended for a week (iirc) for doing so some years back, I'm not going to repeat what I said.
-
Gossip and scandalmongering from the press, whatever next?
However this thread has thrown up a point, ie that there was great stigma attached to illegitimacy in the not too distant past. Even if children were later legitimised, for example by adoption, there were many who looked down on them.
The Church (any branch), certainly should not have done so but in practice it did, eg some clergy would not baptise a baby who was illegitimate. Of course we know that wouldn't have affected the child in any way but it was horrible to be singled out like that. That was something that changed before people's attitudes changed.
I remember a congregation of nuns with whom I was familiar at one time, who did quite a lot of social work, who would not permit someone to join their community and become a nun if they were not born legitimately. Almost unbelievable, most of the nuns thought so too but the rules were the rules.
When I was growing up, a child who was adopted was looked at a bit sideways by many adults - including teachers - as if there was something shoddy about them. If they did anything wrong it was always the fault of their birth mother (something 'born in them'), and they were expected to be grateful for having a good home, something every child is entitled to.
I've seen attitudes change drastically and rejoice in it.
-----------------------------------
Thread has moved on to David Cameron. I can't see that he has done anything wrong, frankly. I really like Corbyn but was sorry to see and hear him, last night on the news, putting his oar in. He'd have done better to be above all of it and say nothing. Until proved otherwise, Cameron is 'not guilty' in my view.
-
I don't disagree at all, but this whole thing has been a media concoction from the word go - apparently the Torygraph approached Welby after carrying out research into his family background.
Why, goodness only knows.
Apparently (according to a news item - can't remember which paper) his half-sister had thought for some time That AofC was the image of her father.
-
Apparently (according to a news item - can't remember which paper) his half-sister had thought for some time That AofC was the image of her father.
There does appear to be a resemblance.
-
Thread has moved on to David Cameron. I can't see that he has done anything wrong, frankly. I really like Corbyn but was sorry to see and hear him, last night on the news, putting his oar in. He'd have done better to be above all of it and say nothing. Until proved otherwise, Cameron is 'not guilty' in my view.
But if the media took this position all the time, we would only have a newspaper once a week, Brownie. ;) In part its the 'needs' of 24 hour news broadcasting that has encouraged the media to investigate so much. That is something that society has required of the media.
-
But if the media took this position all the time, we would only have a newspaper once a week, Brownie. ;) In part its the 'needs' of 24 hour news broadcasting that has encouraged the media to investigate so much. That is something that society has required of the media.
I'm quite happy with a newspaper once a week Hope, the Sunday Times, and I only read sections of that which interest me :D. Of course I sometimes see the news on TV and bits pop up on the internet.
It was my husband who told me about the A of C before anything I'd heard on the news, he'd seen it somewhere. His comment was, ''What's that got to do with anyone else?''
It distresses me when the media print scandal for the sake of it, or try to make a fairly ordinary story seem scandalous, I really distrust the press. I know I wouldn't like it about me or my family but thankfully we are not important enough to make the news.
However, something I hadn't realised before all this came up, Justin Welby comes from quite the upper echelons of society and it has not been uncommon (particularly in the past), for there to be a 'cuckoo in the nest'. They didn't seem to think much of it.
I agree with floo that he does look like his biological father, from the picture I saw last night. Ah well, tomorrow's chip paper.
-
Society might have required his resignation; not sure that the church would have - after all, its not his fault that he's illegitimate. So, yes, good that society has caught up with the church in this instance.
When can we expect the church to catch up with society then?
-
I have explained in detail why I believe this
Where? Or rather, having trodden this wearily mendacious path before more than once, what excuse will you come up with this time for not specifying where?
but since I was suspended for a week (iirc) for doing so some years back, I'm not going to repeat what I said.
Presumably rewording your comments to stay within the terms of the house rules would do the trick.
-
When can we expect the church to catch up with society then?
But society has only just caught up with the church on this issue. Are you nsuggesting that the church has got to lower its sights to be on a par with society? ;)
-
Presumably rewording your comments to stay within the terms of the house rules would do the trick.
Going on the basis of my recent suspension, where I used slightly more moderate language anyway, I doubt it. The problem is that it is hard to moderate the words 'I believe that homosexual relationships are wrong' in such a way as fits the current house rules. In view of that, I shall refrain from the topic henceforth. Everyone knows my views and my reasoning (note, the claim that I use Biblical material to support my view is correct only to the extent that it comes within the wider orbit of my arguments)
-
But society has only just caught up with the church on this issue. Are you nsuggesting that the church has got to lower its sights to be on a par with society? ;)
Some members of the Christian church couldn't be much lower that is for sure! >:(
-
Some members of the Christian church couldn't be much lower that is for sure! >:(
Suggesting, in the context, that sociey is even lower, Floo!!
-
In view of that, I shall refrain from the topic henceforth.
Well as you now have more time on your hands perhaps you could answer my response to your questions here?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11801.100
msg 110.
Feel free to ignore the bit about you horrible views about your homosexual people. We all know where you stand on this.
Would be good of you to finally identify a non naturalistic element of life along with how you know it to be non naturalistic.
-
Would be good of you to finally identify a non naturalistic element of life along with how you know it to be non naturalistic.
Have done this several times, Stephen. The most obvious one is healing miracles. I acknowledge that those who do not believe in such things like to call on the highly unscientific concept of spontaneous healing in order to discredit the idea of miracles - but then, some of them are somewhat hypocritical.
As I pointed out in a previous post, I won't have more time on my hands - if anything, I'll be restricted to evenings and some weekends in my use of this forum for some months.
-
Have done this several times, Stephen. The most obvious one is healing miracles. I acknowledge that those who do not believe in such things like to call on the highly unscientific concept of spontaneous healing in order to discredit the idea of miracles - but then, some of them are somewhat hypocritical.
So you're still acting as though you haven't seen/read, or at any rate understood, the BBC article on spontaneous healing to which I've now linked twice in the recent past and which lays out, clearly and simply, what's already known about the phenomenon and directions for future research.
-
But society has only just caught up with the church on this issue. Are you nsuggesting that the church has got to lower its sights to be on a par with society? ;)
No. Obviously you're having comprehension issues as I'm saying precisely and exactly the opposite; that the church has a very long way indeed to go in order to catch up with society, which does what the church doesn't and takes equal rights seriously and enshrines it in law with appropriate sanctions.
Take women's equality for example. We have and have had female pretty much anything you can think of - GPs, surgeons, politicians, even a female prime minister (unfortunate in that specific case, but there we go) for many decades, yet it took the C of E until 1994 to ordain women as priests and we've had female bishops for all of just over a year.
-
Going on the basis of my recent suspension, where I used slightly more moderate language anyway, I doubt it.
No you didn't.
The problem is that it is hard to moderate the words 'I believe that homosexual relationships are wrong' in such a way as fits the current house rules.
The phrase "I believe that homosexual relationships are wrong" doesn't as far as I'm aware contravene any R & E house rule and is perfectly permissible. Loathsome, pernicious and obnoxious to any fair-minded individual, but perfectly permissible - perhaps Gordon can chip in here. If I recall correctly, your recent suspension arose out of your suggestion that trentvoyager should see his doctor not because he is ill in any way but because he is gay.
In view of that, I shall refrain from the topic henceforth.
Naked cowardice, as I see it.
Everyone knows my views and my reasoning (note, the claim that I use Biblical material to support my view is correct only to the extent that it comes within the wider orbit of my arguments)
I don't. That's to say, I know your views, but not what you think of as your "reasoning" for holding those views. Biblical material is obviously irrelevant to anyone who does not regard the Bible as authoritative on anything. You prate and prattle and insult other forum members with your talk of disorder and damage to society, but never bother to substantiate these charges with evidence.
So it goes - nothing new about that. It's simply more cowardly question-dodging when you are faced with being asked to answer points that you clearly cannot.
-
Have done this several times, Stephen. The most obvious one is healing miracles. I acknowledge that those who do not believe in such things like to call on the highly unscientific concept of spontaneous healing in order to discredit the idea of miracles - but then, some of them are somewhat hypocritical.
As I pointed out in a previous post, I won't have more time on my hands - if anything, I'll be restricted to evenings and some weekends in my use of this forum for some months.
And how do you know they have a non naturalist explanation. This is the point you always dodge.
-
At least now we know where Hope lives - Dodge City.
-
And how do you know they have a non naturalist explanation. This is the point you always dodge.
The term is one that has been created to explain something that science is unable to explain. Furthermore, I'd argue that even miracles have naturalistic explanations but such that go beyond the mere scientifically natural. I don't believe that nature is restricted to what science can encompass.
-
At least now we know where Hope lives - Dodge City.
In view of the ways in which you and others have dodged the matter of what 'natural' means - is it all-encompassed by science, or is that only part of nature - I'd suggest that you probably live closer to the centre of that city than I do.
-
The term is one that has been created to explain something that science is unable to explain.
Or "Something not yet explained, so it behoves us to hang fire, not speculate, keep investigating and await further data" as rational people put it.
Furthermore, I'd argue that even miracles have naturalistic explanations but such that go beyond the mere scientifically natural.
One of the words in the phrase "scientifically natural" is redundant.
I don't believe that nature is restricted to what science can encompass.
If science can't "encompass" X, how can you be aware that there is such a thing as X in the first place? What methodology are you using in order to be able to claim that there is such a thing as X at all?
-
In view of the ways in which you and others have dodged the matter of what 'natural' means - is it all-encompassed by science, or is that only part of nature - I'd suggest that you probably live closer to the centre of that city than I do.
I've actually been pretty explicit about what natural means* - I suppose you must have missed that post just as you've mysteriously missed all the others that you won't touch.
* (For example: here - http://goo.gl/K5YV6y; here - http://goo.gl/05v8rk; here - http://goo.gl/81gBlv; and here - http://goo.gl/Tw8XfS - to give just a few examples).
-
One of the words in the phrase "scientifically natural" is redundant.
In your opinion.
Of course, those of us to believe that the spiritual world is no less natural, the term 'scientific' has to be included as a distinguishing adjective.
If science can't "encompass" X, how can you be aware that there is such a thing as X in the first place? What methodology are you using in order to be able to claim that there is such a thing as X at all?
Well, the obvious methodology is a spiritual one which doesn't fit with a merely scientific outlook, so that those who don't believe in the former won't understand it anyway - which is why I've regularly stated that the debate is somewhat moot as the different protaganists are starting from very different definitions, positions and understandings.
Science will never be able to prove that the spiritual element of nature doesn't/can't exist nor will it's proponents ever be in a position to even cast doubt on it. I realise that you and others have tried hard to do so, but every time one or other of you comes up with another 'appeal to science' you simply point to the fact that you don't understand the other part of the natural world.
-
In your opinion.
No, not my opinion, basic English. When you use more words than are necessary to express a concept it's a pleonasm - a redundancy. The now-banned Johnny Canoe/Oh MY World used to do it regularly with "godless atheists", for example.
Of course, those of us to believe that the spiritual world is no less natural
On what basis? Using what methodology?
Well, the obvious methodology is a spiritual one which doesn't fit with a merely scientific outlook, so that those who don't believe in the former won't understand it anyway - which is why I've regularly stated that the debate is somewhat moot as the different protaganists are starting from very different definitions, positions and understandings.
Which is both a dodge and a straw man.
Science will never be able to prove that the spiritual element of nature doesn't/can't exist nor will it's proponents ever be in a position to even cast doubt on it.
Habitual negative proof fallacy aside, this means that the default position is scepticism, not credulity.
I realise that you and others have tried hard to do so, but every time one or other of you comes up with another 'appeal to science' you simply point to the fact that you don't understand the other part of the natural world.
This so-called "other part" which is so often asserted but which you can't even demonstrate or show a methodology by which to evaluate. Stunning work there.
-
Every now and again I steel myself to read a Hope post! Mostly I read and admire the posts of those with the fortitude and intelligence to respond.
-
Every now and again I steel myself to read a Hope post! Mostly I read and admire the posts of those with the fortitude and intelligence to respond.
So you don't read my posts then? well thank you very much Susan.
Have a good day S D, ippy :P :D
-
So you don't read my posts then? well thank you very much Susan.
Have a good day S D, ippy :P :D
Behave yourself ippy! :P ;D
-
Behave yourself ippy! :P ;D
Sorry Floo I sometimes get days like this, it all started when I looked into the mirror when I was shaving this morning and I could see my Dad looking back, and I then I thought he was a devilishly good looking bloke.
I have to take ugly pills, quite a few each morning, every day :) :) :) :P
ippy
-
In your opinion.
Of course, those of us to believe that the spiritual world is no less natural, the term 'scientific' has to be included as a distinguishing adjective.
Well, the obvious methodology is a spiritual one which doesn't fit with a merely scientific outlook, so that those who don't believe in the former won't understand it anyway - which is why I've regularly stated that the debate is somewhat moot as the different protaganists are starting from very different definitions, positions and understandings.
Science will never be able to prove that the spiritual element of nature doesn't/can't exist nor will it's proponents ever be in a position to even cast doubt on it. I realise that you and others have tried hard to do so, but every time one or other of you comes up with another 'appeal to science' you simply point to the fact that you don't understand the other part of the natural world.
I assume, of course, that you accept that there is such a thing as the 'natural world.' Your last sentence seems to suggest that you do, indeed, think that this is so.
So, now, let's take your 'spiritual element of nature', which is the view that at least some phenomena are the result of forces emanating from this spiritual element. Any methodology verifying this would not only have to show that certain phenomena are explained only by spiritual means, but would have to eliminate the possibility of any natural explanations. Further, such a process, to have reasonable integrity, should have a falsifiability factor built in. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sort of methodology of this sort which can verify this 'spiritual element'.
However, contrary to your view, methodological naturalism could actually go a long way in confirming this by showing that at least one one phenomenon cannot be naturally explicable. In this sense, your 'spiritual element' needs methodological naturalism to demonstrate its viability.
I would have assumed that there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the idea that there is indeed a natural world, of which we are a part. I don't dismiss the idea that a spiritual world also exists, just that I see no evidence for it, until, of course, you are willing to present evidence which is in compliance with the above definition for its methodology.
To state that "you don't understand the other part of the natural world" does not necessarily follow. It could well be a case of simply not having the evidence in making such a claim leads one to dismiss the idea of a 'spiritual element' as not probable, that is until that evidence arrives. You see, it is not necessarily a case of not understanding, but simply not agreeing.
-
I assume, of course, that you accept that there is such a thing as the 'natural world.' Your last sentence seems to suggest that you do, indeed, think that this is so.
So, now, let's take your 'spiritual element of nature', which is the view that at least some phenomena are the result of forces emanating from this spiritual element. Any methodology verifying this would not only have to show that certain phenomena are explained only by spiritual means, but would have to eliminate the possibility of any natural explanations. Further, such a process, to have reasonable integrity, should have a falsifiability factor built in. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sort of methodology of this sort which can verify this 'spiritual element'.
And any methodology verifying this spiritual element would also have to rely on aspects that a purely scientific verification model is unable to deal with.
However, contrary to your view, methodological naturalism could actually go a long way in confirming this by showing that at least one one phenomenon cannot be naturally explicable. In this sense, your 'spiritual element' needs methodological naturalism to demonstrate its viability.
And I've already mentioned one such phenomenon - miraculous (or to use the non-believers term - spontaneous) healing. Can't remember exactly who it was, but on a previous thread on miraculous/spontaneous healing, one poster pointed out that the human body repirs itself very effectively and normally, often without help. I've also seen that argument used on other forums I am or have been a member of. Unfortunately, this kind of healing isn't referred to as 'spontaneous' healing (nor is it referred to as 'miraculous' healing). Those terms are reserved for situations that medical science has proved unable to resolve. Again, situations that science is not in a position to explain!
I would have assumed that there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the idea that there is indeed a natural world, of which we are a part. I don't dismiss the idea that a spiritual world also exists, just that I see no evidence for it, until, of course, you are willing to present evidence which is in compliance with the above definition for its methodology.
Whilst you 'see no evidence for it' there are many people who, looking at the same material, have found plenty of evidence. That means that either they are seeing stuff that isn't there, or you are failing to see what is there.
-
Hi Hope,
And any methodology verifying this spiritual element would also have to rely on aspects that a purely scientific verification model is unable to deal with.
I am quite happy to go along with this. So, what is the methodology that can verify this spiritual element? Remember, I suggest it would have to fulfill the requirements that I have laid out.
And I've already mentioned one such phenomenon - miraculous (or to use the non-believers term - spontaneous) healing. Can't remember exactly who it was, but on a previous thread on miraculous/spontaneous healing, one poster pointed out that the human body repirs itself very effectively and normally, often without help. I've also seen that argument used on other forums I am or have been a member of. Unfortunately, this kind of healing isn't referred to as 'spontaneous' healing (nor is it referred to as 'miraculous' healing). Those terms are reserved for situations that medical science has proved unable to resolve. Again, situations that science is not in a position to explain!
Spontaneous healing does not eradicate the possibility of it being naturally explicable, nor does it suggest that the only other explanation is a spiritual one. So, it fails as a verification example on both counts.
Whilst you 'see no evidence for it' there are many people who, looking at the same material, have found plenty of evidence. That means that either they are seeing stuff that isn't there, or you are failing to see what is there.
No, you misunderstand the point. I'm quite sure that many people see plenty of things which they think point towards a spiritual world, as, I am sure, there are plenty of people who don't. Whether either party is right or wrong is neither here nor there. The point I am making is about the quality of such evidence(as I have described) in either eliminating one view or the other in these instances. So, when you suggest, that 'the other part of the natural world" exists, you surely have to explain your methodology which leads to this certain conclusion, a methodology which has to be rigorous enough to support your assertion. Otherwise, what you are claiming is simply a belief.
-
Hi Hope,
I am quite happy to go along with this. So, what is the methodology that can verify this spiritual element? Remember, I suggest it would have to fulfill the requirements that I have laid out.
Precisely, it would have to fulfill the requirements you have laid out - such that you would be asking a 'physical' verification process to verify 'non-physical' issues. Very clever - NOT!
Spontaneous healing does not eradicate the possibility of it being naturally explicable, nor does it suggest that the only other explanation is a spiritual one. So, it fails as a verification example on both counts.
Oddly enough, the circumstances in which the concept of miracle (or spontaneous healing) is invoked tend to refer to the extremes of health conditions; situtions whereby the body's immune and other protective and rehabilitative arealready deemed, by medical science, to have been seriously compromised or even destroyed. Often, the condition/illness/whatever has existed for years, during which the body's systems have progressively shut down and/or collapsed. Even from a scientific perspective, a natural explanation is very very unlikely, if not impossible.
No, you misunderstand the point. I'm quite sure that many people see plenty of things which they think point towards a spiritual world, as, I am sure, there are plenty of people who don't. Whether either party is right or wrong is neither here nor there. The point I am making is about the quality of such evidence(as I have described) in either eliminating one view or the other in these instances. So, when you suggest, that 'the other part of the natural world" exists, you surely have to explain your methodology which leads to this certain conclusion, a methodology which has to be rigorous enough to support your assertion. Otherwise, what you are claiming is simply a belief.
See answer to 1st paragraph, above.
-
Behave yourself ippy! :P ;D
Clearly ippy doesn't believe that his posts show fortitude and intelligence, Floo ;)
-
Mostly I read and admire the posts of those with the fortitude and intelligence to respond.
I ish a few more of them included the latter, Susan. Most of the time they simpy repeat what has been said before, and which has been shown to be suspect by far better brains on this board that mine.
-
I ish a few more of them included the latter, Susan. Most of the time they simpy repeat what has been said before
... in response to the same old unevidenced, fallacy-riddled, assertion-heavy bollocks which has been posted before. If you lot changed the record you could expect the response to be different.
and which has been shown to be suspect by far better brains on this board that mine.
I would ask for examples of this but given your history and habit of dodging, know better than to do so.
-
Even from a scientific perspective, a natural explanation is very very unlikely, if not impossible.
How do you know that?
-
The term is one that has been created to explain something that science is unable to explain.
Do you mean:
a) Something that is currently unexplained by science.
b) Something that can never be explained by science
In the first case do things get promoted for non natural to natural when a scientific explanation arises. e.g. In you view is thunder something that was one non natural but is now natural?
In the second case how would you know? i.e. If you had lived before thunder was understood, you would have declared it non natural and something that could never be explained by science.
You have alluded to miraculous healings as an example of something you class as non natural. I still don't see how application of science can't help in this area.
For example let's take the case of intercessory prayer (I am sure you have said in the past that you think that this occurs).
The claim take two parts:
1) That prayer has a beneficial outcome to patients i.e they do better than patients not prayed for.
2) The cause of this beneficial outcome is to do with divine intervention.
Before we get onto point two we need to establish if point one is true or not. If it cannot be established as true we don't need to give the second point any consideration i.e. we don't need an explanation for a phenomenon that does not occur.
So my question to you is, why isn't the scientific method the perfect one for establishing the first point?
I agree that it can say nothing about point two, i.e. is divine intervention involved, but it can certainly establish the truth of point one.
-
Science will never be able to prove that the spiritual element of nature doesn't/can't exist nor will it's proponents ever be in a position to even cast doubt on it.
I don't think anyone has ever tried to do that.
Actually it is people like you who cast doubt on it by being unable to show how you know what you claim to know that goes beyond, a poor understanding of what science is, personal incredulity and fallacious reasoning.
[/quote]
I realise that you and others have tried hard to do so, but every time one or other of you comes up with another 'appeal to science' you simply point to the fact that you don't understand the other part of the natural world.
Firstly you need to show that there is an other part of the world before we get ahead of ourselves by attempting to understand it.
Note that this a position of scepticism. No one that I am aware of is saying that there can be no other part of the world, but simply that is has not been demonstrated.
-
How do you know that?
He doesn't.
-
situtions whereby the body's immune and other protective and rehabilitative arealready deemed, by medical science, to have been seriously compromised or even destroyed.
This is the medical science that you seem to suggest gets stuff wrong?
What if they are wrong in those instances?
What if they in fact have not been 'seriously compromised or even destroyed.'?
-
Precisely, it would have to fulfill the requirements you have laid out - such that you would be asking a 'physical' verification process to verify 'non-physical' issues. Very clever - NOT!
Oddly enough, the circumstances in which the concept of miracle (or spontaneous healing) is invoked tend to refer to the extremes of health conditions; situtions whereby the body's immune and other protective and rehabilitative arealready deemed, by medical science, to have been seriously compromised or even destroyed. Often, the condition/illness/whatever has existed for years, during which the body's systems have progressively shut down and/or collapsed. Even from a scientific perspective, a natural explanation is very very unlikely, if not impossible.
See answer to 1st paragraph, above.
Others have made what I think are pertinent points, although I feel sure you might not agree.
However to answer your post directly:
1)Again you misunderstand. The natural world is pretty well universally accepted including, by the way, yourself. Therefore there is no need to substantiate it. The spiritual world is not generally accepted or even agreed on what it consists of, hence the need for evidence which shows its existence and which excludes the natural world. If it were the other way round, then I would agree with you, but it isn't. So, I would say to you again, what is your methodology which can verify, and furthermore clarify this spiritual element?
2)I would suggest again that what you call spontaneous healing does not only include the possibility of natural explanation, but does not seem to support your hypothesis of a spiritual dimension at all. Spontaneous deterioration would also have to be taken into account when looking at the evidence. Even if one discounted this possibility of natural explanations, what one seems to be left with is an entirely indiscriminate process where healing/deterioration seems to happen on what looks like a random basis. This does not seem to hang well with the idea that a spiritual element is at play.
3)See response 1.
-
Others have made what I think are pertinent points, although I feel sure you might not agree.
However to answer your post directly:
1)Again you misunderstand. The natural world is pretty well universally accepted including, by the way, yourself. Therefore there is no need to substantiate it. The spiritual world is not generally accepted or even agreed on what it consists of, hence the need for evidence which shows its existence and which excludes the natural world. If it were the other way round, then I would agree with you, but it isn't. So, I would say to you again, what is your methodology which can verify, and furthermore clarify this spiritual element?
2)I would suggest again that what you call spontaneous healing does not only include the possibility of natural explanation, but does not seem to support your hypothesis of a spiritual dimension at all. Spontaneous deterioration would also have to be taken into account when looking at the evidence. Even if one discounted this possibility of natural explanations, what one seems to be left with is an entirely indiscriminate process where healing/deterioration seems to happen on what looks like a random basis. This does not seem to hang well with the idea that a spiritual element is at play.
3)See response 1.
Very well put, especially point 1.
-
Others have made what I think are pertinent points, although I feel sure you might not agree.
However to answer your post directly:
1)Again you misunderstand. The natural world is pretty well universally accepted including, by the way, yourself. Therefore there is no need to substantiate it. The spiritual world is not generally accepted or even agreed on what it consists of, hence the need for evidence which shows its existence and which excludes the natural world. If it were the other way round, then I would agree with you, but it isn't. So, I would say to you again, what is your methodology which can verify, and furthermore clarify this spiritual element?
2)I would suggest again that what you call spontaneous healing does not only include the possibility of natural explanation, but does not seem to support your hypothesis of a spiritual dimension at all. Spontaneous deterioration would also have to be taken into account when looking at the evidence. Even if one discounted this possibility of natural explanations, what one seems to be left with is an entirely indiscriminate process where healing/deterioration seems to happen on what looks like a random basis. This does not seem to hang well with the idea that a spiritual element is at play.
3)See response 1.
enki, may I point out a couple of errors. I can quite easily acknowledge the natural world - I have never done anything but. However, my experience of life as a whole is that the 'natural world' that can be verified by sceintific testing and experiment is not the whole of the natural world. Yes, in a wa, one has to experience before one appreciates it - in the same way that, for instance, one has to experience Niagara Falls (or Victoria Falls) before one can fully appreciate their majesty. They are more than just a physical drop in a river bed and the resultant waterfall.
Secondly, I don't talk about spontaneous healing; I have only used the phrase in my posts because it is the explanation - that has no scientific grounding behind it - that some here choose to use instead of the term 'miraculous healing'. In other words, they prefer to use one 'unscientific' term, instead of another. As regards your invocation of randomness, there is a degree of randomness with spontaneous healing, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for it from a scientific point of view. At least with miraculous healing, which tends to follows prayer, there is a some form of reason.
-
tends?
-
Post hoc ergo propter hoc ::)
-
I know I've said this before, but Hope has told us of the young man he knows whose fractured arm or wrist healed miraculously following prayer. Except such things are common in young people; a similar thing happened to the seventeen year old son of my driving instructor. Only without the prayer bit.
-
enki, may I point out a couple of errors. I can quite easily acknowledge the natural world - I have never done anything but. However, my experience of life as a whole is that the 'natural world' that can be verified by sceintific testing and experiment is not the whole of the natural world. Yes, in a wa, one has to experience before one appreciates it - in the same way that, for instance, one has to experience Niagara Falls (or Victoria Falls) before one can fully appreciate their majesty. They are more than just a physical drop in a river bed and the resultant waterfall.
Secondly, I don't talk about spontaneous healing; I have only used the phrase in my posts because it is the explanation - that has no scientific grounding behind it - that some here choose to use instead of the term 'miraculous healing'. In other words, they prefer to use one 'unscientific' term, instead of another. As regards your invocation of randomness, there is a degree of randomness with spontaneous healing, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for it from a scientific point of view. At least with miraculous healing, which tends to follows prayer, there is a some form of reason.
You may, except I'm not sure where the 'errors' lie. Firstly I have already suggested that you acknowledge the natural world, so no error there. Secondly, I have already accepted that your experiences lead you to think that there is more than the natural world involved, when I said "I'm quite sure that many people see plenty of things which they think point towards a spiritual world". That, of course, includes you, so no error there. Thirdly, I am not asking you for a scientific methodology, just a verifiable methodology of any type you care to use which will substantiate this spiritual world. So, no error there. If you have subjective experiences such as experiencing the majesty of the Niagara Falls how does this even come close to verifying that a spiritual world actually exists? Surely you are talking about intense personal experiences, which as important as they are to you(or mine to me, for that matter), cannot be used as evidence for or against a spiritual dimension, not even the divine or any sort of consciousness outside of nature. If you are going to make assertions that there is a definitely a spiritual dimension, you need much more than this.
On the subject of spontaneous healing or miraculous healing or whatever you care to call it, you cannot easily discount natural processes as a possibility, and, even if you did, as you agree, there does seem to be no 'rhyme or reason', and I would suggest from any point of view. That is one reason why, if we are to find reasons behind such phenomena, our best bet is to look at the natural world. At least we know that that world exists.
As far as the last sentence goes, follow your own logic. If miraculous healing follows no praying at all, then is the idea of not praying to be touted as the reason for this? Or, if praying is followed by no evidence of miraculous healing(which, I would suggest, is the case for the vast majority of cases), does this mean that praying has a deleterious effect? I see no evidence for either, of course, just as I see no evidence that the actual act of praying can help cause your miraculous healing. The fact that in very few instances so called miraculous healing has followed praying can be explained by selective correlation, not causation, just as instances when no miraculous healing takes place after praying is again selective correlation, not causation.
-
On the subject of spontaneous healing or miraculous healing or whatever you care to call it, you cannot easily discount natural processes as a possibility, and, even if you did, as you agree, there does seem to be no 'rhyme or reason', and I would suggest from any point of view. That is one reason why, if we are to find reasons behind such phenomena, our best bet is to look at the natural world. At least we know that that world exists.
Actually, we generally CAN discount natural processes as a possibility, enki. As I've already pointed out, the terms are generally used when all the natural processes have been exhausted or non-functioning - be those the body's own mechanisms or medical science's best provisions. To say that there is somehow a further reserve of natural processes beyond these is to suggest that there is another dimension (for want of a better term) of natural-ity that science isn't able to probe. Could this be the very thng that we're dealing with in this debate - the spiritual element to the natural world?
As far as the last sentence goes, follow your own logic. If miraculous healing follows no praying at all, then is the idea of not praying to be touted as the reason for this? Or, if praying is followed by no evidence of miraculous healing(which, I would suggest, is the case for the vast majority of cases), does this mean that praying has a deleterious effect? I see no evidence for either, of course, just as I see no evidence that the actual act of praying can help cause your miraculous healing. The fact that in very few instances so called miraculous healing has followed praying can be explained by selective correlation, not causation, just as instances when no miraculous healing takes place after praying is again selective correlation, not causation.
I accept that miracles don't necessarily follow prayer - but then, questions need to be asked about the motivation of that prayer (was it honest, was it really putting the best for person concerned first - or was it simply selfish on the pasrt of the persdon praying, etc. etc.). Similarly, as with ordinary human situations, NO is a perfectly legitimate answer to requests - they don't all have to be answered in the affirmative, if a 'No' is actually better for the asker. (The famous 'want' v 'need' dilemma).
Incidentally, since so few miraculous healings are reported, not least because of our confidentiality rules, how do you know how many (or few) take place? I woulodn't be able to tell you how many such events have occurred in the UK over the past - say 5 years, simply because they aren't reported by the medical or secular press; however, I can say that I have known upwards of a dozen people who have been healed - in direct contravention (to coin a phrase) of highly authoritative medical opinion - as a result of prayer over the last 2 or 3 years alone.
Again, this is something that has to be experienced, either personally (or at least within a family or close community), before it can be appreciated.
In finishing, I'd fully agree that we need "... to look at the natural world. At least we know that that world exists." It just seems to me that some people understand the term 'the natural world' in different ways to others.
-
Actually, we generally CAN discount natural processes as a possibility, enki.
You had better write to some of the scientist who are investigating such occurrences then and tell them that they are wasting their time. I have access to most scientific journals, would you like me to give you the names and addresses of the people who publish papers on the subject.
It is clear you know next to nothing about carrying out science, so I hope you don't mind if we take you opinion with a pinch of salt.
I accept that miracles don't necessarily follow prayer - but then, questions need to be asked about the motivation of that prayer (was it honest, was it really putting the best for person concerned first - or was it simply selfish on the pasrt of the persdon praying, etc. etc.). Similarly, as with ordinary human situations, NO is a perfectly legitimate answer to requests - they don't all have to be answered in the affirmative, if a 'No' is actually better for the asker. (The famous 'want' v 'need' dilemma).
In the case of no healing happening as a response to prayer how do you tell the difference between a no for an answer and prayer having no effect?
You have setup an unfalsifiable hypotheses.
Incidentally, since so few miraculous healings are reported, not least because of our confidentiality rules, how do you know how many (or few) take place? I woulodn't be able to tell you how many such events have occurred in the UK over the past - say 5 years, simply because they aren't reported by the medical or secular press; however, I can say that I have known upwards of a dozen people who have been healed - in direct contravention (to coin a phrase) of highly authoritative medical opinion - as a result of prayer over the last 2 or 3 years alone.
No, not as a result of prayer. Before you can say that you need to show both correlation between praying and healing and a causative link between praying and healing. If you just showed a correlation it would not demonstrate a non-natural cause i.e. a non scientific explanation (your definition).
-
Actually, we generally CAN discount natural processes as a possibility, enki. As I've already pointed out, the terms are generally used when all the natural processes have been exhausted or non-functioning - be those the body's own mechanisms or medical science's best provisions. To say that there is somehow a further reserve of natural processes beyond these is to suggest that there is another dimension (for want of a better term) of natural-ity that science isn't able to probe. Could this be the very thng that we're dealing with in this debate - the spiritual element to the natural world?
You do realize that you have just claimed perfect knowledge of all aspects of how the human body can recover? Scientists and medical researchers will be overjoyed. I suggest you publish your findings and claim your Nobel Prize forthwith.
I accept that miracles don't necessarily follow prayer - but then, questions need to be asked about the motivation of that prayer (was it honest, was it really putting the best for person concerned first - or was it simply selfish on the pasrt of the persdon praying, etc. etc.). Similarly, as with ordinary human situations, NO is a perfectly legitimate answer to requests - they don't all have to be answered in the affirmative, if a 'No' is actually better for the asker. (The famous 'want' v 'need' dilemma).
Blind faith at its worst: whatever happens you can claim it as a confirmation of your beliefs.
What about unexpected recovery after prayers to different gods, other superstitious practices, or nothing at all?
Again, this is something that has to be experienced, either personally (or at least within a family or close community), before it can be appreciated.
On the contrary, a rational approach comes from detachment.
-
Actually, we generally CAN discount natural processes as a possibility, enki. As I've already pointed out, the terms are generally used when all the natural processes have been exhausted or non-functioning - be those the body's own mechanisms or medical science's best provisions. To say that there is somehow a further reserve of natural processes beyond these is to suggest that there is another dimension (for want of a better term) of natural-ity that science isn't able to probe. Could this be the very thng that we're dealing with in this debate - the spiritual element to the natural world?
I accept that miracles don't necessarily follow prayer - but then, questions need to be asked about the motivation of that prayer (was it honest, was it really putting the best for person concerned first - or was it simply selfish on the pasrt of the persdon praying, etc. etc.). Similarly, as with ordinary human situations, NO is a perfectly legitimate answer to requests - they don't all have to be answered in the affirmative, if a 'No' is actually better for the asker. (The famous 'want' v 'need' dilemma).
Incidentally, since so few miraculous healings are reported, not least because of our confidentiality rules, how do you know how many (or few) take place? I woulodn't be able to tell you how many such events have occurred in the UK over the past - say 5 years, simply because they aren't reported by the medical or secular press; however, I can say that I have known upwards of a dozen people who have been healed - in direct contravention (to coin a phrase) of highly authoritative medical opinion - as a result of prayer over the last 2 or 3 years alone.
Again, this is something that has to be experienced, either personally (or at least within a family or close community), before it can be appreciated.
In finishing, I'd fully agree that we need "... to look at the natural world. At least we know that that world exists." It just seems to me that some people understand the term 'the natural world' in different ways to others.
Best summed up in three words: pure unadulterated pish!
-
Wow - but just wow.
The King of Wishful Thinking.
-
Different kinds of cancers provide an interesting example. Breast cancers seem to have a rate of spontaneous remission of about 20%, (that is, without treatment), whereas with other cancers, such as liver and lung, it is low.
I suppose you could argue that God likes women and therefore is keen to help them recover from breast cancer.
<sarcastic smiley>
-
Best summed up in three words: pure unadulterated pish!
Different to the three I'd have chosen, but I catch your drift.
-
Different kinds of cancers provide an interesting example. Breast cancers seem to have a rate of spontaneous remission of about 20%, (that is, without treatment), whereas with other cancers, such as liver and lung, it is low.
I suppose you could argue that God likes women and therefore is keen to help them recover from breast cancer.
<sarcastic smiley>
Nuns tend to have a high rate of breast cancer apparently, because they've not had the protective benefits of breastfeeding.
-
Nuns tend to have a high rate of breast cancer apparently, because they've not had the protective benefits of breastfeeding.
I don't know the specific stats but I recall that not too many years ago there was study demonstrating the protective effects of frequent ejaculation in men with regard to prostate cancer - the men who had more frequent ejaculation had lower rates than those who didn't.
So chastity, if adhered to strictly, appears to be medically harmful as well as disagreeable :)
-
Coming dear, never sounded so good.
-
I don't know the specific stats but I recall that not too many years ago there was study demonstrating the protective effects of frequent ejaculation in men with regard to prostate cancer - the men who had more frequent ejaculation had lower rates than those who didn't.
So chastity, if adhered to strictly, appears to be medically harmful as well as disagreeable :)
And monks can't even bash the bishop.
-
You do realize that you have just claimed perfect knowledge of all aspects of how the human body can recover? Scientists and medical researchers will be overjoyed. I suggest you publish your findings and claim your Nobel Prize forthwith.
I wish I did know such information, but then I'm largely using knowledge I have gathered from medical doctors (as opposed to non-medical ones) and other medics - who I would have thought know what they're talking about.
Blind faith at its worst: whatever happens you can claim it as a confirmation of your beliefs.
Thankfully I don't subscribe to blind faith, SKoS. It does, however, explain why some people here find it hard to question their understandings of life.
(a) What about unexpected recovery after prayers to different gods, (b) other superstitious practices, (c) or nothing at all?
(a) As I've said on a number of occasions before, Judeo/Christianity thinking isn't the only manifestation of the spiritual side of reality. This is why, for instance, the first 11 chapters of Genesis had to be written in the period after the Jews returned from their exile in Babylon; they needed to be shown how the God of the Jews differed from the gods of the Babylonians.
(b) Perhaps you could give us a bit more detail about what you're referring to.
(c) Such as ...?
On the contrary, a rational approach comes from detachment.
Which is largely why I don't take that much notice of those who are so attached to science that they become un-objective.
-
Best summed up in three words: pure unadulterated pish!
OK, I'll tell the medical scientists and doctors I know - some non-religious, perhaps even atheist; some religious - that what they have told me and others is "pure unadulterated pish".
-
Wow - but just wow.
The King of Wishful Thinking.
I'd agree that some who put all their trust in science are 'wishful thinkers'.
-
OK, I'll tell the medical scientists and doctors I know - some non-religious, perhaps even atheist; some religious - that what they have told me and others is "pure unadulterated pish".
Please do: you see no credible medic would use isolated cases mixed with special pleading like you are doing. I speak from over 20 years experience working in acute specialties and never heard any professional speculate about divine intervention even once.
As I said, pish!
-
Different kinds of cancers provide an interesting example. Breast cancers seem to have a rate of spontaneous remission of about 20%, (that is, without treatment), whereas with other cancers, such as liver and lung, it is low.
wiggi, I've always understood that the term 'spontaneous remission' is not the same as the term 'spontaneous healing' - let alone miraculous healing.
I've seen some of the studies on the remission rates of breast cancer - though haven't yet seen any that give anything other than tentative explanations - but there may be some such by now.
"Spontaneous/miraculous" healing tends to be applied to situations where treatment has been extensive and exhausted; where medics have informed the patient and/or family that there is 'nothing else we can do' and all the 'interference' is removed. I appreciate that there are some of a whole host of world views who regard scientific medicine with suspicion, but I believe that the proportion of Christians who do so - here in the UK, for instance - to be pretty small.
-
Please do: you see no credible medic would use isolated cases mixed with special pleading like you are doing. I speak from over 20 years experience working in acute specialties and never heard any professional speculate about divine intervention even once.
As I said, pish!
I'm not talking about "medics ... using isolated cases mixed with special pleading", Gordon. I know that you would like that to be the case - after all, it would help to support your case; rather I'm talking about medics who believe that 1) their medical knowledge and expertise is given them by God - through expert educators and mentors, 2) are leaders in their fields, and 3) believe that medical science is only one part of holistic care for people.
-
I'm not talking about "medics ... using isolated cases mixed with special pleading", Gordon. I know that you would like that to be the case - after all, it would help to support your case; rather I'm talking about medics who believe that 1) their medical knowledge and expertise is given them by God - through expert educators and mentors, 2) are leaders in their fields, and 3) believe that medical science is only one part of holistic care for people.
Any chance of a reply to #77.
Ta
-
I admire your persistence, Stephen.
-
I'm not talking about "medics ... using isolated cases mixed with special pleading", Gordon. I know that you would like that to be the case - after all, it would help to support your case; rather I'm talking about medics who believe that 1) their medical knowledge and expertise is given them by God - through expert educators and mentors, 2) are leaders in their fields, and 3) believe that medical science is only one part of holistic care for people.
So why don't these medics recommend prayer as an effective treatment of these conditions?
-
I admire your persistence, Stephen.
Well, I admire Sisyphus in a way.
-
I wish I did know such information, but then I'm largely using knowledge I have gathered from medical doctors (as opposed to non-medical ones) and other medics - who I would have thought know what they're talking about.
Medical doctors don't know everything about how people recover; can't you see how utterly ridiculous such a claim is?
Unexpected recovery does happen - with or without prayer.
Thankfully I don't subscribe to blind faith, SKoS.
Your 'reasoning' was a perfect example of blind faith:-
I accept that miracles don't necessarily follow prayer - but then, questions need to be asked about the motivation of that prayer (was it honest, was it really putting the best for person concerned first - or was it simply selfish on the pasrt of the persdon praying, etc. etc.). Similarly, as with ordinary human situations, NO is a perfectly legitimate answer to requests - they don't all have to be answered in the affirmative, if a 'No' is actually better for the asker. (The famous 'want' v 'need' dilemma).
It shows that your belief in prayer is totally unfalsifiable; whatever happens, you interpret it as prayers being answered. That is blind (impervious to any inconvenient facts) faith.
(a) As I've said on a number of occasions before, Judeo/Christianity thinking isn't the only manifestation of the spiritual side of reality. This is why, for instance, the first 11 chapters of Genesis had to be written in the period after the Jews returned from their exile in Babylon; they needed to be shown how the God of the Jews differed from the gods of the Babylonians.
(b) Perhaps you could give us a bit more detail about what you're referring to.
(c) Such as ...?
a) Previously, you've told us that there is a methodology for assessing claims about god ideas, now you are claiming multiple, contradictory, ideas are actually all "manifestations of the spiritual side of reality". How do you square that particular circle...?
b) Do a search - there are endless groups of faith healers and other brands of quackery claiming miracle cures.
c) As has been pointed out, sometimes people just get better.
Which is largely why I don't take that much notice of those who are so attached to science that they become un-objective.
Example?
-
People often get better, don't they? This is not the case with some illnesses, e.g. liver cancer, but it is the case with things like flu.
A lot of healing stories are anecdotal, in any case. I knew a man who had a son who broke his leg, but was dancing the week afterwards, because he was prayed over.
-
Well, I admire Sisyphus in a way.
You and Alby Camus to name but two ;)
-
Well, I admire Sisyphus in a way.
Not sure how to take that?
Don't recall him being a particularly nice chap.
And I don't have a boulder handy.:)
-
"Spontaneous/miraculous" healing tends to be applied to situations where treatment has been extensive and exhausted; where medics have informed the patient and/or family that there is 'nothing else we can do' and all the 'interference' is removed. I appreciate that there are some of a whole host of world views who regard scientific medicine with suspicion, but I believe that the proportion of Christians who do so - here in the UK, for instance - to be pretty small.
It's not about regarding scientific medicine with suspicion, it's recognising that it has its limitations. The human body is incredibly complicated, and we don't know everything about it, by a long way. Take the placebo effect, for example.
Your argument is bizarre: you seem to be trying to prove the miraculous by claiming that medical science is perfect.
-
Actually, we generally CAN discount natural processes as a possibility, enki. As I've already pointed out, the terms are generally used when all the natural processes have been exhausted or non-functioning - be those the body's own mechanisms or medical science's best provisions. To say that there is somehow a further reserve of natural processes beyond these is to suggest that there is another dimension (for want of a better term) of natural-ity that science isn't able to probe. Could this be the very thng that we're dealing with in this debate - the spiritual element to the natural world?
I accept that miracles don't necessarily follow prayer - but then, questions need to be asked about the motivation of that prayer (was it honest, was it really putting the best for person concerned first - or was it simply selfish on the pasrt of the persdon praying, etc. etc.). Similarly, as with ordinary human situations, NO is a perfectly legitimate answer to requests - they don't all have to be answered in the affirmative, if a 'No' is actually better for the asker. (The famous 'want' v 'need' dilemma).
Incidentally, since so few miraculous healings are reported, not least because of our confidentiality rules, how do you know how many (or few) take place? I woulodn't be able to tell you how many such events have occurred in the UK over the past - say 5 years, simply because they aren't reported by the medical or secular press; however, I can say that I have known upwards of a dozen people who have been healed - in direct contravention (to coin a phrase) of highly authoritative medical opinion - as a result of prayer over the last 2 or 3 years alone.
Again, this is something that has to be experienced, either personally (or at least within a family or close community), before it can be appreciated.
In finishing, I'd fully agree that we need "... to look at the natural world. At least we know that that world exists." It just seems to me that some people understand the term 'the natural world' in different ways to others.
I haven't been able to access R&E until now, but I see any points you have made have been dealt with perfectly adequately by others.
Here are some of my thoughts:
I disagree completely that natural processes can be generally discounted. Present hypotheses for this particular healing effect include the immunological response, increased apoptosis and necrosis, hormonal responses, the role of epigenetics, psychological mechanisms, and, particularly in cases of spontaneous regression of cancer, the role of oncogenes and tumoral suppressors. All these are being examined, all of these are potentially natural explanations and if any of these, for instance, was found to play a part then this could well lead to great advances in medical care. There is not the slightest evidence that any actual 'spiritual element' plays any part at all.
As far as prayer motivation is concerned, you are simply suggesting that it is possible that the 'right' kind of prayer may not have been followed in cases where no spontaneous healing occurs, and all this without the slightest evidence to back this up. Also, if the response to even the 'right' kind of prayer is sometimes in the negative,(presumably because the god prayed to has other ideas), and as this is no different to spontaneous healing seemingly being totally erratic in nature, then this is no evidence at all that the act of praying has any effect on the healing process.
As regards the frequency of spontaneous healing, I must disagree with you again. Some unreported cases might well be because the physician assumed misdiagnosis or the patient felt better and didn't carry on with the treatment. And then there is some evidence, for instance, that in patients with solar keratosis, roughly a third underwent spontaneous remission. Another study had these words, that "either regular screening caused breast cancer, or a large percentage of invasive breast cancers simply regressed without treatment." On the other hand, it is rare for a person who has pancreatic cancer to experience spontaeous remission. Incidentally, I use the words 'spontaneous remission' and 'spontaneous healing' interchangably here. One is used by the medical profession, the other is simply more a layman's term.
Incidentally, I totally reject as any sort of solid evidence the anecdotal cases that you present here, just as I reject any of the anecdotal cases that my wife has suggested where prayer did not seem to be an important factor.
Appreciation and personal experience are valuable assets, but they do not necessarily comprise valid evidence at all.
-
Actually, we generally CAN discount natural processes as a possibility, enki.
No 'we' cant, since there are no good reasons to assume that there is no further knowledge to be obtained - the reality is that medical knowledge continues to progress It seems clear your knowledge of medical science is confined to the anecdotes you're so fond of
As I've already pointed out, the terms are generally used when all the natural processes have been exhausted or non-functioning - be those the body's own mechanisms or medical science's best provisions. To say that there is somehow a further reserve of natural processes beyond these is to suggest that there is another dimension (for want of a better term) of natural-ity that science isn't able to probe. Could this be the very thng that we're dealing with in this debate - the spiritual element to the natural world?
No, this is just an argument from ignorance mixed with your personal credulity.
I accept that miracles don't necessarily follow prayer - but then, questions need to be asked about the motivation of that prayer (was it honest, was it really putting the best for person concerned first - or was it simply selfish on the pasrt of the persdon praying, etc. etc.).
Prayer doesn't work, since if it did medics (who like to make people better) would be prescribing it: and they aren't.
Similarly, as with ordinary human situations, NO is a perfectly legitimate answer to requests - they don't all have to be answered in the affirmative, if a 'No' is actually better for the asker. (The famous 'want' v 'need' dilemma).
So it is o.k for this God of yours to say 'no' and let children die of, say, bone cancer?
Incidentally, since so few miraculous healings are reported, not least because of our confidentiality rules, how do you know how many (or few) take place?
Ah - so the medical profession are conspiring to keep divine intervention quiet are they? More pure unadulterated pish.
I woulodn't be able to tell you how many such events have occurred in the UK over the past - say 5 years, simply because they aren't reported by the medical or secular press; however, I can say that I have known upwards of a dozen people who have been healed - in direct contravention (to coin a phrase) of highly authoritative medical opinion - as a result of prayer over the last 2 or 3 years alone.
More anecdotal nonsense to highlight that you know little about medicine, probably due to wearing those rose-tinted god-glasses. By the way what about the silent evidence of people who do less well than their prognosis: the inconvenient other side of the coin.
Again, this is something that has to be experienced, either personally (or at least within a family or close community), before it can be appreciated.
Nope - this would just be you resorting to fallacious reasoning again.
In finishing, I'd fully agree that we need "... to look at the natural world. At least we know that that world exists." It just seems to me that some people understand the term 'the natural world' in different ways to others.
Naturalism doesn't exclude unknowns, but it doesn't assume cause and effect without evidence supported by an appropriate method: so where is your method to support your claims of divine intervention.
-
Naturalism doesn't exclude unknowns.
As long as they are natural unknowns.
-
As long as they are natural unknowns.
Which is implicit in the term, where developments in the associated methods are the means by which new evidence and knowledge is obtained. Your point is?
-
Hope,
When I refereed to unanswered pertinent questions I was referring to ones asked of you after you last post on this thread (#92).
In terms of academics, I asked you if you planned to write to scientists who are active in the field but are, according to you, wasting their time because you believe that a natural process can ruled out. In which case they are obviously wasting their time.
You now seem to suggesting that you know of academics who believe, like you, that natural process can be ruled out.
I understand that because I raised this on another thread and so some misunderstanding regarding what your actual view is could have occurred.
However, if I do understand you rightly then I would love to trade addresses and papers.
I will supply you with a citation to a paper including the addresses of the authors, which show a scientific/natural approach to these cases.
In return you can supply me with a citation to a paper including the addresses of the authors which show that a scientific/natural approach can be ruled out.
Up for it if you are.
-
No 'we' cant, since there are no good reasons to assume that there is no further knowledge to be obtained - the reality is that medical knowledge continues to progress It seems clear your knowledge of medical science is confined to the anecdotes you're so fond of
As you will obviously know, I disagree with you in this aspect. As for the knowledge of medical science, I tend not to bother with anecdotes; I tend to listen to medical scientists.
No, this is just an argument from ignorance mixed with your personal credulity.
You're entitled to this view, but when medical scientists I know disagree with your ideas, I think I will pay as much attention to their ideas as I do to yours
Prayer doesn't work, since if it did medics (who like to make people better) would be prescribing it: and they aren't.
And you have evidence of that? Remember that most medics prescribe a combination of medications, especially in the more serious conditions.
So it is o.k for this God of yours to say 'no' and let children die of, say, bone cancer?
Life is so valuable in your view that no-one, once born, should die?
Ah - so the medical profession are conspiring to keep divine intervention quiet are they? More pure unadulterated pish.
I know of medics who use both science and faith to optimise their work.
More anecdotal nonsense to highlight that you know little about medicine, probably due to wearing those rose-tinted god-glasses. By the way what about the silent evidence of people who do less well than their prognosis: the inconvenient other side of the coin.
1) I don't have huge medical knowledge, which is why I listen to and discuss things with medical scientists at the top of their professions;
2) I wear tinted glasses, yes - but they aren't rose-tinted. ;)
3) The silent evidence - doesn't look well on the medical science school report, does it.
Nope - this would just be you resorting to fallacious reasoning again.
Oddly enough, it is the scientists I know as well as the 'ordinary' folk I know who make a lot about the importance of what you call this 'fallacious reasoning'.
Naturalism doesn't exclude unknowns, but it doesn't assume cause and effect without evidence supported by an appropriate method: so where is your method to support your claims of divine intervention.
As I've pointed out many a time, providing a method that will satisfy your rather simplistic natural requirements is pretty well impossible since it will require reference to non-naturalistic evidence that your approach won't be able to cope with.
-
As I've pointed out many a time, providing a method that will satisfy your rather simplistic natural requirements is pretty well impossible since it will require reference to non-naturalistic evidence that your approach won't be able to cope with.
Why don't do you do here what you claim* you've done in more than one place elsewhere online and provide this so-called method, so that we can all see it for ourselves?
Unless you're just a liar, of course, and have never stumped up this methodology anywhere. That would certainly explain your manifest inability to provide this alleged methodology in a nicely Occam's Razor-satisfying way.
After all, you can't prove that I'm wrong, can you? ;)
* Here: http://goo.gl/JYTEqC
-
As you will obviously know, I disagree with you in this aspect. As for the knowledge of medical science, I tend not to bother with anecdotes; I tend to listen to medical scientists.
Then try reading some reputable journals where the provenance of the authors is known: all you cite are anonymous 'medical scientists'.
You're entitled to this view, but when medical scientists I know disagree with your ideas, I think I will pay as much attention to their ideas as I do to yours
Perhaps you'd cite some of their publications.
And you have evidence of that? Remember that most medics prescribe a combination of medications, especially in the more serious conditions.
Bearing in mind this comment is in response to my 'Prayer doesn't work, since if it did medics (who like to make people better) would be prescribing it: and they aren't.' statement then your response, where you conflate prayer with drug therapies, is beyond silly.
I know of medics who use both science and faith to optimise their work.
In their publications do they demonstrate the effectiveness of prayer? If so I'd be interested to read their work: please cite references
1) I don't have huge medical knowledge, which is why I listen to and discuss things with medical scientists at the top of their professions;
You don't, and I suspect by dint of my career I may have the advantage of you: please cite these 'top of their professions' medics since then we can all review their publications.
2) I wear tinted glasses, yes - but they aren't rose-tinted. ;)
They most certainly are.
3) The silent evidence - doesn't look well on the medical science school report, does it.
Which demonstrates how little you know and understand: you cite, anecdotally, a small number of cases that you claim are 'healed' beyond what would be expected prognosis-wise while conveniently ignoring all those cases who do less well than their prognosis: clear cherry picking on your part.
Oddly enough, it is the scientists I know as well as the 'ordinary' folk I know who make a lot about the importance of what you call this 'fallacious reasoning'.
Names please.
As I've pointed out many a time, providing a method that will satisfy your rather simplistic natural requirements is pretty well impossible since it will require reference to non-naturalistic evidence that your approach won't be able to cope with.
I can cope fine thanks: I coped with a 42-year NHS career where the first half was spent in various clinical specialties and the second half included doing academic research that was sufficient to gain my PhD (University of Edinburgh) along with several publications along the way. So I'm, and unlike you, quite familiar with the academic aspects of healthcare in general, and since I still have access to the University library I'm well placed to check out any references you provide (if you do).
So, where is this method then - it seems to be absent.
-
Get out, as they say, of that.
-
Sorry Floo I sometimes get days like this, it all started when I looked into the mirror when I was shaving this morning and I could see my Dad looking back, and I then I thought he was a devilishly good looking bloke.
I have to take ugly pills, quite a few each morning, every day :) :) :) :P
ippy
My daily dose of Ugly Pills is now so high it is fed intravenously as well as cooked in with my meals!
-
To everyone posting to this thgread (with one notable exception)
Do you ever feel that you are talking to the Wailing Wall?
If "Yes" - (a) - some of the time or (b) - all of the time?