Saint Teresa

[floo]

I am having trouble with this whole idea of miracles.

What criteria is used for performing a miracle on any given individual. I am sure that Monika Besra was as deserving as anyone else of a miracle - but more deserving than any other person suffering?

How does this prioritisation of miracles work? Or is it just an example that God delivers through a chosen one to give us all hope?

If so, isn't God setting up the vast majority of people to feel rejected as not worthy to be cured of the illness that eventually will carry us all off?

Very strange. I prefer more rational explanations: Besra's husband and doctors all testified that Monika had been treated by drugs and cured.

Nobody lives forever - now that would be proof positive of miracles. We all die of something.

(((((However, the human race produces many exceptions in the field of ill health where people recover when not expected to. It is an area that is fascinating and needs much more study - but to attribute it to miracles is a step too far.)))))

I agree, in my opinion science will eventually come up with explanations for unexplained healings

[Nearly Sane]

To be fair to Vlad, his leg growing back question is caused by the many atheists who ask the 'Why doesn't god heal amputees?' question and stand back smiling smugly as if they have just done a logic knockout.

It is superficially appealing as a challenge to supernatural claims but strangely founders on the problem of induction that Vlad mentioned. It takes the position that there are no cases and will be no cases of an amputee growing a limb back without explanation. It then conflates that non occurrence as indicative of something that should it ever happen would be sufficiently non explainable that they would have to accept a supernatural cause.

This, in essence, accepts the supernatural claims as somehow being validated by their rarity, rather than challenging it at at the basic level that not explained does not mean unexplainable. Nor is there a way of demonstrating that inter subjective knowledge developed through the method of science could ever claim to be able to say that something could not happen naturally. Indeed it is set up as a set of methods where such a conclusion is impossible.


Linking this to the whole efficacy of prayer question, whilst the studies carried out seem to show no beneficial effect, this does not invalidate any claim of the supernatural cause but rather the naturally observed effect of actions. It does not and cannot address individual claims of 'my prayers were answered'. Further if studies consistently showed that prayer was efficacious (along with medicinal compound) in every case where a member of a specific religious group prayed, all this would confirm is the observed effect not the cause.

[ProfessorDavey]

This, in essence, accepts the supernatural claims as somehow being validated by their rarity, rather than challenging it at at the basic level that not explained does not mean unexplainable. Nor is there a way of demonstrating that inter subjective knowledge developed through the method of science could ever claim to be able to say that something could not happen naturally. Indeed it is set up as a set of methods where such a conclusion is impossible

I think there is a key point here.

Whether or not a phenomenon can be claimed as 'supernatural' has nothing to do with its ubiquity or rarity - rather it rests on whether it is explainable by reference to natural physical laws. Note 'explainable' not 'explained' - so just because we do not understand something yet doesn't support it being supernatural, although of course if we do understand it by reference to natural physical laws the claim of supernatural fails.

So back to rarity etc - there was a time when very common phenomena (e.g. thunder/lightning or earthquakes) were considered to be supernatural despite not being rare. Now that of course was faulty thinking as they were (at the time) merely unexplained by reference to natural physical laws, rather than unexplainable. And once science started to study the phenomena they readily because explained.

Why I think there is a focus on the rare events in relation to supernatural claims today is that science has been very good at providing explanations for so many common phenomena - sure we might not understand everything, but we understand enough to negate the supernatural requirement that they are unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws.

But of course it is much harder for science to study very rare events - not because we don't have the tools, but simply because of their scarcity. Hence we have rare events which due to the challenge of study remain unexplained. Of course that doesn't support a claim of supernatural one iota, but those whose thinking is a touch muddled in this respect have a tendency to fixate on the rare and unexplained as synonymous with unexplainable and therefore supernatural. They are of course nothing of the sort, and it is likely that in due course science will begin to overcome the logistical challenges of study and begin to explain them by reference to natural physical laws.

[Nearly Sane]

I pretty much agree with all of that except for the bit 'although of course if we do understand it by reference to natural physical laws the claim of supernatural fails.'. Anything that we find by science I.e. that which is backed up or backs up natural physical laws can only be explained within that context. Every effect could in fact be being carried out by Kevin and his band of magical pixies but we have no method to establish that or to disprove it.

[ProfessorDavey]

I pretty much agree with all of that except for the bit 'although of course if we do understand it by reference to natural physical laws the claim of supernatural fails.'. Anything that we find by science I.e. that which is backed up or backs up natural physical laws can only be explained within that context. Every effect could in fact be being carried out by Kevin and his band of magical pixies but we have no method to establish that or to disprove it.

Not sure I agree with you.

It seems far too low a bar to allow anything, even if completely explained by reference to natural physical laws, to still be considered plausibly supernatural means that everything is. To my mind something can only be credibly suggested to be supernatural if it cannot be explained by natural physical laws and I think this is a generally accepted definition.

[Gordon]

I think one reason why many of us ask for a method that is suited to miracle claims that seem to fall outwith currently used methods and knowledge is in recognition of the possibility of there being an explanation via some alternative method(s) that involve suitably disciplined investigation that could convincingly (in terms of the method used) demonstrate divine intervention, and until then 'unexplained' or 'don't know' are reasonable positions to hold.

However, there is a prior step - and one that I keep banging on about - which is that the initial claim is free of the risks of mistakes or lies, or indeed other aspects of human artifice which might cast doubt on there being an actual 'something' to investigate, as opposed to there being just claim of this 'something'. These are very real risks and I've yet to see these being adequately dealt with by proponents of miracle claims, and especially where these events date to antiquity and where the evidence is anecdotal and in revered ancient texts so that fallacious arguments from tradition and authority are risks too.   

I'd have thought that proponents of miracles would do better to develop methods to investigate more recent claims since if it were possible to confirm divine intervention in current circumstances, where both the details of the claimed miracle event and role of witnesses and supporters of the claim are amenable, this would surely aid the case for possible divine intervention in circumstances that are no longer amenable to investigation.

Unfortunately, in reading around the background to the claims involving the subject of this thread just by doing an internet search, there are seemingly reports by both the doctor who treated her and her husband that this woman recovered via medical intervention, and also a report that the case notes containing the details of her medical treatment are with the nun who is running the operation in Calcutta - so it seems to me that in spite of the RCC making her a saint there is a risk of deception in this case that hasn't been addressed.       

   

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure I agree with you.

It seems far too low a bar to allow anything, even if completely explained by reference to natural physical laws, to still be considered plausibly supernatural means that everything is. To my mind something can only be credibly suggested to be supernatural if it cannot be explained by natural physical laws and I think this is a generally accepted definition.

I wasn't suggesting that that the supernatural is currently credible. In fact even in you 'generally accepted definition' I don't see it as credible since that is only ever going to be something not explained, nothing more. You couldn't as fatpr as I can see get to a 'cannot ever be explained' . You have a methodology that  assumes natural causes. It dies not proce natural causes.  All effects could be by Kevin and his pixies, how can a science show otherwise?


The whole idea that there is a happening which us known to be completely unexplainable by science is denying that science is always provisional.

[Nearly Sane]

To pick up Gordon's post, I don't, other than in seeking to show people that claims are worth challenging to find out whether they are true in terms of the facts, and that applies to naturalistic claims just as much as supernatural ones, see much point in treating the claims as valid to supernatural cause in this way. All we could ever establish is that the claim appeared to be something that doesn't fit in with our current understanding of natural processes. That in no way makes the claim of the supernatural cause any more valid.

[jeremyp]

I pretty much agree with all of that except for the bit 'although of course if we do understand it by reference to natural physical laws the claim of supernatural fails.'. Anything that we find by science I.e. that which is backed up or backs up natural physical laws can only be explained within that context. Every effect could in fact be being carried out by Kevin and his band of magical pixies but we have no method to establish that or to disprove it.

If that were the case then the claim still fails. Natural physical law would be our description of the rules by which Kevin operates.

[ProfessorDavey]

If that were the case then the claim still stands. Natural physical law would be our description of the rules by which Kevin operates.

In which case the claim of supernatural for the phenomenon would fail. Sure we can engage in rather pointless conjecture about the supernatural existence of Kevin - but he would be an entity devoid of evidence for existence because all of the purported effects of Kevin would fail the supernatural test.

[jeremyp]

In which case the claim of supernatural for the phenomenon would fail.

Oops, I got it the wrong way round in my post, I meant to say that the claim fails. Will fix it.

[Nearly Sane]

If that were the case then the claim still fails. Natural physical law would be our description of the rules by which Kevin operates.

But the claim is about the cause, you can't say that Kevin and his magic pixies are not supernatural simply by saying you describe anything as natural.

[Nearly Sane]

In which case the claim of supernatural for the phenomenon would fail. Sure we can engage in rather pointless conjecture about the supernatural existence of Kevin - but he would be an entity devoid of evidence for existence because all of the purported effects of Kevin would fail the supernatural test.

There is no 'supernatural' test in a naturalustuc methodology. We cannot have evidence of such a thing using science.

[jeremyp]

But the claim is about the cause, you can't say that Kevin and his magic pixies are not supernatural simply by saying you describe anything as natural.

I didn't say I describe anything as natural.

The fact is that what we call "physical law" is a description of the way in which we observe objects behaving. We know nothing about the underlying mechanism of why things behave approximately according to these rules. The underlying mechanism might be Kevin and the Pixies or it might be a Matrix style computer or anything - it's inaccessible to us.

I do think the definition of "supernatural" is problematic. If we encounter something that doesn't behave according to the laws of physics, is it because there is a supernatural or is it because our understanding of the laws of physics is incorrect or is it because we were mistaken in our observation? If it's the supernatural option and we discover a way to observe it reliably, does it not then become part of the natural?

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't say I describe anything as natural.

The fact is that what we call "physical law" is a description of the way in which we observe objects behaving. We know nothing about the underlying mechanism of why things behave approximately according to these rules. The underlying mechanism might be Kevin and the Pixies or it might be a Matrix style computer or anything - it's inaccessible to us.

I do think the definition of "supernatural" is problematic. If we encounter something that doesn't behave according to the laws of physics, is it because there is a supernatural or is it because our understanding of the laws of physics is incorrect or is it because we were mistaken in our observation? If it's the supernatural option and we discover a way to observe it reliably, does it not then become part of the natural?

So if it is inaccessible to us that we cannot say the claim has failed. As to the three possibilities you post, it's only by realising that our method to investigate things we encounter that we don't understand is naturalistic that we can immediately put the supernatural to one side as bring a non useful answer.


As to whether reliably observing something would mean it was natural, part of the problem there is we observe effects, they may be seen as being caused by other things but that's the perception we have not a claim to an absolute. I think that anything we observe and investigate with science is by definition natural. Those making the claims of the supernatural cause seem to look on it as something that can never be natural because all that be seen is an effect that cannot happen within a naturalistic process. This means that science can never be of worth in that investigation. That there is no method given then to validate it simply makes it entirely spurious.

[Gordon]

To pick up Gordon's post, I don't, other than in seeking to show people that claims are worth challenging to find out whether they are true in terms of the facts, and that applies to naturalistic claims just as much as supernatural ones, see much point in treating the claims as valid to supernatural cause in this way. All we could ever establish is that the claim appeared to be something that doesn't fit in with our current understanding of natural processes. That in no way makes the claim of the supernatural cause any more valid.

Yes, I can see that: if a claim seems contrary to current knowledge or isn't amenable to current methods of investigation then there is no basis to either accept or reject the claim. The best that can be said is 'no explanation', which doesn't open the door to the supernatural (whatever that is).

My concern when it comes to miracle claims is that there is that a 'something' occurred in the first place, since it seems to me that the risks of mistakes or lies get glossed over and that if the claim is fiction then there is nothing to be investigated in the first place: a bit like searching for the favourite pipe of Sherlock Holmes - it doesn't exist and never did.   

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I can see that: if a claim seems contrary to current knowledge or isn't amenable to current methods of investigation then there is no basis to either accept or reject the claim. The best that can be said is 'no explanation', which doesn't open the door to the supernatural (whatever that is).

My concern when it comes to miracle claims is that there is that a 'something' occurred in the first place, since it seems to me that the risks of mistakes or lies get glossed over and that if the claim is fiction then there is nothing to be investigated in the first place: a bit like searching for the favourite pipe of Sherlock Holmes - it doesn't exist and never did.   

Yes, I think there is a need to say to people that make such claims that the claims to facts have to be properly investigated AND at the same time point out that until a further form of methodology can be put forward the most that will currently be established is something is that not explained.

[jeremyp]

So if it is inaccessible to us that we cannot say the claim has failed.

A supernatural claim can be found to be in compliance with physical law in which case it fails or it might be found not to have happened in which case it fails.

I think that anything we observe and investigate with science is by definition natural.

And when you take into account that science is the only means we have of investigating the real World it makes the definition of "supernatural" highly problematic.

[Nearly Sane]

A supernatural claim can be found to be in compliance with physical law in which case it fails or it might be found not to have happened in which case it fails.
And when you take into account that science is the only means we have of investigating the real World it makes the definition of "supernatural" highly problematic.

You can investigate a supernatural claim of effect in terms of if someone made a claim that if you pray to Kevin to be able to fly it will happen 8 times out of 10. That is you can see if a factual claim of a result is correct. You cannot find a cause claim in compliance or not compliance because I could as I mentioned earlier say that everything is done by Kevin and no set of investigations will show anything. All claims about the supernatural even ones about factual results are effectively about causes. This removes them from scientific investigation.



The definition is only problematic for anyone who wants to argue that they accept something as a cause that is not discoverable by naturalistoc means.

[jeremyp]

You can investigate a supernatural claim of effect in terms of if someone made a claim that if you pray to Kevin to be able to fly it will happen 8 times out of 10. That is you can see if a factual claim of a result is correct.

Yes.

You cannot find a cause claim in compliance or not compliance because I could as I mentioned earlier say that everything is done by Kevin and no set of investigations will show anything. All claims about the supernatural even ones about factual results are effectively about causes. This removes them from scientific investigation.

Actually, you could quite easily find out if the cause of you being able to fly (assuming you can fly) was praying to Kevin. You just need to set up some properly controlled experiments.

The question is then "what is the mechanism?". If a mechanism can be found that is in accord with natural law, clearly you do not have a supernatural event. If a mechanism cannot be found, either the event is supernatural or it is natural but beyond our science at the moment.

Here is where I have a problem with the word "supernatural": if we have a method for determining what the supernatural mechanism is, doesn't that automatically make the event natural. For example, if the mechanism that gives people who pray to Kevin the gift of flight is that Kevin and the Magic Pixies come to them and lift them on ectoplasmic jets emanating from the various orifices of their bodies, and we discover a method of verifying that, Kevin, the Pixies and the ectoplasm immediately become part of the natural World.

[Bubbles]

I can fly

( in a plane of course  )

[Sriram]

Yes.
Actually, you could quite easily find out if the cause of you being able to fly (assuming you can fly) was praying to Kevin. You just need to set up some properly controlled experiments.

The question is then "what is the mechanism?". If a mechanism can be found that is in accord with natural law, clearly you do not have a supernatural event. If a mechanism cannot be found, either the event is supernatural or it is natural but beyond our science at the moment.

Here is where I have a problem with the word "supernatural": if we have a method for determining what the supernatural mechanism is, doesn't that automatically make the event natural. For example, if the mechanism that gives people who pray to Kevin the gift of flight is that Kevin and the Magic Pixies come to them and lift them on ectoplasmic jets emanating from the various orifices of their bodies, and we discover a method of verifying that, Kevin, the Pixies and the ectoplasm immediately become part of the natural World.

And that is why there is nothing 'supernatural'.  Everything is natural. It is just  that it is presently outside the purview of science.

Science probably understands just a fraction of what actually exists. Merely because we cannot understand or identify some phenomenon with known scientific laws does not mean it cannot exist.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes.
Actually, you could quite easily find out if the cause of you being able to fly (assuming you can fly) was praying to Kevin. You just need to set up some properly controlled experiments.

The question is then "what is the mechanism?". If a mechanism can be found that is in accord with natural law, clearly you do not have a supernatural event. If a mechanism cannot be found, either the event is supernatural or it is natural but beyond our science at the moment.

Here is where I have a problem with the word "supernatural": if we have a method for determining what the supernatural mechanism is, doesn't that automatically make the event natural. For example, if the mechanism that gives people who pray to Kevin the gift of flight is that Kevin and the Magic Pixies come to them and lift them on ectoplasmic jets emanating from the various orifices of their bodies, and we discover a method of verifying that, Kevin, the Pixies and the ectoplasm immediately become part of the natural World.

no you can find out if the claim is backed up by the effect, not the cause. You cannot have a method that assumes naturalism, that has no way of looking at cause as not being natural can deal with any non natural claim.

But you are absolutely right that any way of explaining things by science will be natural, it's written into the method. But it's based on the idea that anything you argue is a cause is natural. Given that the idea put forward by those that argue for the supernatural argue that it is breach of those processes, then it is meaningless to use a method that specifically excludes it. It seems to accept a shifting of the burden of proof of the claim to a method that is based on naturalism. That anyone understanding science would seek to accept that burden of proof, or think that they can make the burden seems odd.

[Nearly Sane]

And that is why there is nothing 'supernatural'.  Everything is natural. It is just  that it is presently outside the purview of science.

Science probably understands just a fraction of what actually exists. Merely because we cannot understand or identify some phenomenon with known scientific laws does not mean it cannot exist.

which means that you are saying to those who claim miracles validate any of their beliefs are talking mince. If Jesus rose from the dead it was just a sufficiently advanced civilisation.

[Sriram]

which means that you are saying to those who claim miracles validate any of their beliefs are talking mince. If Jesus rose from the dead it was just a sufficiently advanced civilisation.

There is nothing 'just' about it. If Jesus walked on water...it IS something extraordinary because it is not something anyone else can do. But that does not make it supernatural. He knew how to do it....others don't!  That is it. You can fire a gun that a Amazon tribal cannot...so it is extraordinary for the tribal ...but quite ordinary for you. 

It is about how we expand the scope of our understanding and how we accommodate phenomena into our fold of knowledge. Its basically about labeling....nothing else. 

It need not be about a advanced civilization from somewhere else. It could be something that we all are capable of but have not yet got around to. We have not yet grown and developed enough to bring certain phenomena into our area of understanding.  It speaks of our limitations and not about the world. The world is what it is.