Archbishop Welby's statement

[Enki]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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).

[Stranger]

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.

[Gordon]

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!

[Aruntraveller]

Wow - but just wow.

The King of Wishful Thinking.

[wigginhall]

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>

[Shaker]

Best summed up in three words: pure unadulterated pish!

Different to the three I'd have chosen, but I catch your drift.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Shaker]

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

[wigginhall]

Coming dear, never sounded so good.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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".

[Hope]

Wow - but just wow.

The King of Wishful Thinking.

I'd agree that some who put all their trust in science are 'wishful thinkers'.

[Gordon]

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!

[Hope]

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. 

[Hope]

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.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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

[Rhiannon]

I admire your persistence, Stephen.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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?

[wigginhall]

I admire your persistence, Stephen.

Well, I admire Sisyphus in a way. 

[Stranger]

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?

[wigginhall]

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. 

[Shaker]

Well, I admire Sisyphus in a way.

You and Alby Camus to name but two