Non-realist Christianity

[Shaker]

I mainly wanted to point out that although it may seem like healing doesn't occur, it has occurred according to the NT.

This is merely assertion unsupported by a scrap of evidence, about which you are quite correct that reasonable people are sceptical.

As was Christ's coming and miracles, Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4.Luke 1:3Neither were Jesus' healing miracles.

Ditto.

Really, did Mohammed claim to be the Son of God?

Did Jesus?

[DaveM]

Spud

so what do you think are the prospects for getting rid of my cancer with a prayer or two?!

I'll stick to medication and, it may turne out to be, surgical skill.

I would suggest you follow both processes.  Let me tell you a story of two brain tumors.

The daughter of one of our Bible Study members (she lives in the UK) was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor.  She was waiting her turn in the NHS for surgery, the state of the tumor being monitored in the interim.  Naturally there was also much prayer being made for her within the group.  Then about ten days ago she was suddenly told that an opportunity to perform the surgery the next day has arisen and she was to report to the hospital early in the morning.

She was in the operating theatre for over 12 hours.   During the entire period much prayer was offered.  She now faces a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation period but indications are for a good prognosis.

The second case concerns the son of one of the mothers in our group and goes back a while.  Again a fairly significant tumor was identified and surgery was planned.  Again much prayer was offered.  But during the wait for surgery he began to feel much improved. Subsequent tests showed that the tumor had completely disappeared.  It has never returned. 

So did God act in answer to the prayers?  The Christian answer would be in the affirmative in both instances.  But as is His sovereign right the answers came through different channels.  But that is a statement of faith and not of fact.  The facts are simply as outlined in the above two paragraphs.  And for those who would conclude that the second tumor was nothing more that one of those rare cases of spontaneous remission and just a fortunate co-incident, you may well be correct.  My own experience is the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

I would suggest you follow both processes.  Let me tell you a story of two brain tumors.

The daughter of one of our Bible Study members (she lives in the UK) was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor.  She was waiting her turn in the NHS for surgery, the state of the tumor being monitored in the interim.  Naturally there was also much prayer being made for her within the group.  Then about ten days ago she was suddenly told that an opportunity to perform the surgery the next day has arisen and she was to report to the hospital early in the morning.

She was in the operating theatre for over 12 hours.   During the entire period much prayer was offered.  She now faces a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation period but indications are for a good prognosis.

The second case concerns the son of one of the mothers in our group and goes back a while.  Again a fairly significant tumor was identified and surgery was planned.  Again much prayer was offered.  But during the wait for surgery he began to feel much improved. Subsequent tests showed that the tumor had completely disappeared.  It has never returned. 

So did God act in answer to the prayers?  The Christian answer would be in the affirmative in both instances.  But as is His sovereign right the answers came through different channels.  But that is a statement of faith and not of fact.  The facts are simply as outlined in the above two paragraphs.  And for those who would conclude that the second tumor was nothing more that one of those rare cases of spontaneous remission and just a fortunate co-incident, you may well be correct.  My own experience is the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen.

Affecting anecdotes both, but how do you validate your remarkable claim that “the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen”?

How for example did you account for confirmation bias? Did you use separate test and control groups, and how did you decide which set to pray for and which not to pray for in order to avoid selection bias? For the former, did you distinguish between those who were told they were prayed for and those who didn’t know? What statistical analysis did you do to eliminate noise, and how did you decide how many standard deviations from the mean constituted outliers? Was the incidence of successes greater than you’d expect to happen spontaneously in the general population of people with the same diagnoses, and if "yes" how did you validate that?

See, here’s the thing: the religious in particular put great store by “testimony”. I’ve never yet though been able to find a logical path from testimony to evidence, except that is as evidence that people believe the narratives they reach for to explain the phenomena they observe. To be fair to you, you were careful not to jump to “therefore God”, but the “seems” of “the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen” is the key word here.

To you, it probably does seem that way. It probably does too though to the person who hops backwards with a stick or rhubarb up his nose chanting the lyrics of Bros’s “When Will I be Famous?” who gets the same ratio of hits and misses, but also ignores the latter.     

[SusanDoris]

Dave M #201

I refer you to bluehillside's #202.

[Spud]

Bluehillside,
The stick of rhubarb is a pretend microphone, right?!

[DaveM]

DaveM,

Affecting anecdotes both, but how do you validate your remarkable claim that “the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen”?

Short answer is I do not attempt to.  But before you rush in with a response along the lines of, ‘Ha, caught with your pants down again’ let me share one further anecdote which dates back many years.

Around the 1980’s many parts of the Church were significantly impacted by what was termed the ‘Renewal Movement’.  At that time a new large church emerged in this country whose leader was making all sorts of claims about healing miracles which were being witnessed in large numbers at their church meetings.  When challenged on these claims he made a very foolish response.  He invited the media (TV in particular) to attend a meeting on a certain Sunday where they would be able to witness and record such events as proof of his claims.

I remember being asked by some friends before the meeting what I thought would take place.  My short answer was nothing. This for the simple reason that God will not permit Himself to be put to the test. 

And that is exactly what transpired.  Large crowds and a significant media contingent were present.  But the Lord declined the invitation and decided to go walk about in some other parts of town instead.

The simple facts are that you cannot put the Lord in a test tube and subject Him to testing of a scientific nature.  And I do not waste my time trying to ‘prove’ the testimonies I share on issues like praying for the sick through the process of validation using the methodology of science. Which is why I said in #201 that my view that the outcome in both cases was a result of prayer, was a statement of faith and not of scientific fact.

God does not use miracles to convince the unbeliever.  It is not in His nature to do so.

So I may well continue to share further such co-incidences as they arise.  And the facts I present dealing with the nature and final outcome of the problem will be correct.  But any views expressed as to the reason for the outcome being due to God’s intervention will be a reflection of my faith and not one of scientific fact. It would not be in expectation of anything but further cynical responses.  Such is the nature of this forum.   

[Shaker]

Of course, what you refer to as cynical responses are what the rest of us call rational ones. You're as perfectly well aware as are we that holding a belief in a God that declines to be tested - thus making any claims of alleged healing instantly and automatically untestable - is pretty much the most whopping exercise in question-begging (in the proper sense of the phrase) ever known to man. And of course massively convenient for you, off the evidential hook as you are.

Still, to your credit you do admit that your beliefs are held on the basis of faith not fact - such a concession is rare indeed round these here parts.

[floo]

Short answer is I do not attempt to.  But before you rush in with a response along the lines of, ‘Ha, caught with your pants down again’ let me share one further anecdote which dates back many years.

Around the 1980’s many parts of the Church were significantly impacted by what was termed the ‘Renewal Movement’.  At that time a new large church emerged in this country whose leader was making all sorts of claims about healing miracles which were being witnessed in large numbers at their church meetings.  When challenged on these claims he made a very foolish response.  He invited the media (TV in particular) to attend a meeting on a certain Sunday where they would be able to witness and record such events as proof of his claims.

I remember being asked by some friends before the meeting what I thought would take place.  My short answer was nothing. This for the simple reason that God will not permit Himself to be put to the test. 

And that is exactly what transpired.  Large crowds and a significant media contingent were present.  But the Lord declined the invitation and decided to go walk about in some other parts of town instead.

The simple facts are that you cannot put the Lord in a test tube and subject Him to testing of a scientific nature.  And I do not waste my time trying to ‘prove’ the testimonies I share on issues like praying for the sick through the process of validation using the methodology of science. Which is why I said in #201 that my view that the outcome in both cases was a result of prayer, was a statement of faith and not of scientific fact.

God does not use miracles to convince the unbeliever.  It is not in His nature to do so.

So I may well continue to share further such co-incidences as they arise.  And the facts I present dealing with the nature and final outcome of the problem will be correct.  But any views expressed as to the reason for the outcome being due to God’s intervention will be a reflection of my faith and not one of scientific fact. It would not be in expectation of anything but further cynical responses.  Such is the nature of this forum.   

You are entitled to your faith if it does the business for you. At least you admit it is faith not fact.

[Owlswing]

You are entitled to your faith if it does the business for you. At least you admit it is faith not fact.

Hear! Hear!

[Owlswing]

I would suggest you follow both processes.  Let me tell you a story of two brain tumors.

The daughter of one of our Bible Study members (she lives in the UK) was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor.  She was waiting her turn in the NHS for surgery, the state of the tumor being monitored in the interim.  Naturally there was also much prayer being made for her within the group.  Then about ten days ago she was suddenly told that an opportunity to perform the surgery the next day has arisen and she was to report to the hospital early in the morning.

She was in the operating theatre for over 12 hours.   During the entire period much prayer was offered.  She now faces a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation period but indications are for a good prognosis.

The second case concerns the son of one of the mothers in our group and goes back a while.  Again a fairly significant tumor was identified and surgery was planned.  Again much prayer was offered.  But during the wait for surgery he began to feel much improved. Subsequent tests showed that the tumor had completely disappeared.  It has never returned. 

So did God act in answer to the prayers?  The Christian answer would be in the affirmative in both instances.  But as is His sovereign right the answers came through different channels.  But that is a statement of faith and not of fact.  The facts are simply as outlined in the above two paragraphs.  And for those who would conclude that the second tumor was nothing more that one of those rare cases of spontaneous remission and just a fortunate co-incident, you may well be correct.  My own experience is the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen.

I would disagree that "the more one prays the more these co-incidents seem to happen".

The harder you look the easier it is to find ways to make the co-incidents fit.

You can, and at least one longterm poster used to do so all the time, make anything fit, usually on the premise that 'how do you know that it wasn't the fact that God intervened that worked and it would have done even if the medicos had not done their bit or that it wasn't God directing the efforts of the medicos'. 

[Enki]

No, not cherry picking, just seeing what many others can also see.

So are you saying you can see no design in the 'programming' of DNA and it's complexity?

To respond to your first sentence, where you say you haven't cherry picked. Firstly fibonnaci sequences occurs in nature. Yes, they do, but rarely in perfect form.  A design suggests a designer but there is no evidence of any designer unless you suggest that entirely natural processes are responsible for the patterns produced in nature. And, of course, there are many other natural patterns which occur in nature too, such as symmetry, spirals, waves, tesselations, dots, stripes, fractals. These can often be explained by natural processes or evolutionary processes according to the laws of physics and can also be described in mathematical terms. So why pick out the fibonnaci pattern for special mention?

I see that Rhiannon has suggested this site:

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

You never know, you might learn something by looking at it.


As regards DNA, I see no evidence of intelligent design in DNA at all. As far as we can tell, DNA originated as RNA, which is much simpler. DNA, of course, is one of the tools which has shown how we are connected to all other living things, and is a source of evidence for the process of evolution. There is no evidence, and more importantly no need for any intelligent design element to be introduced. Indeed, the make up of the genome suggests there are large amounts of junk DNA, which can be explained by random mutation, but not by design, unless one suggests a particularly unintelligent, imperfect and haphazard designer perhaps.

[Dicky Underpants]

I wobble.

Apparently. And you did so years ago, "changing from realist to non-realist as often as you changed underpants". Nowt wrong with that - it's a sign of an enquiring mind. However, on this thread you seemed to have come down firmly for the non-realist view, whereas elsewhere you seem to be arguing forcibly for something closer to the realist one. All a trifle confusing.

[Robbie]

That's what wobbling is Dicky, confusing  .
A nice long bike ride to clear the head is recommended, it's only raining a little bit.

[Dicky Underpants]

That's what wobbling is Dicky, confusing  .
A nice long bike ride to clear the head is recommended, it's only raining a little bit.

Look, I don't care how much Steve wobbles - my own views on a number of matters are not at all consistent. But I try not to pretend that I'm arguing with conviction for one point of view whilst  arguing at the same time with equal conviction for another, and flinging out thuggish ad hominems in the process. I always admired Steve's postings years ago - his no-bullshit approach was very refreshing. I'm not so impressed by his more recent effusions. They seem like double-think.

[Robbie]

Thinking out loud doesn't always work.