Ever felt insignificant?

[MrGongGong]

Extraordinary things can and do happen which have baffled scientists and other 'experts', and if the people involved (who are in the best position to know) think that it is the power of prayer which has, say, caused them to have a miraculous and unexplained recovery from a terminal illness who am I to contradict them?

Oh dear
you still at it Scotty ......... clutching at straws again

Show me, with evidence, a REAL example not the usual "received wisdom" nonsense
the actual evidence (which i'm sure I researched a while back and quotes from ?) is that you are LESS likely to survive serious illness if you are aware that people are "praying" for you. Having had major surgery (and worked in the past in a children's oncology unit) I know what i'm more likely to put my trust in.

[heliocentric]

Extraordinary things can and do happen which have baffled scientists and other 'experts', and if the people involved (who are in the best position to know) think that it is the power of prayer which has, say, caused them to have a miraculous and unexplained recovery from a terminal illness who am I to contradict them?

I hear the sound of barrels being scraped.

Why are the people involved "in the best position to know"? What kind of illnesses were they? Presumably none of them involved something like regrowing an amputated limb? (As opposed for example to "spontaneous" remission from cancer for which there are well-understood mechanisms that don't require divine intervention.) The paucity of examples of that kind of thing would suggest that there are strict limits to what kinds of medical conditions prayer can "help" with. Why should that be, I wonder?

[vinteuil]

Extraordinary things can and do happen

As that great Scotsman Hume put it [ Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding ] -

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. ... When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he relates should really have happened."

Hume concludes his section on Miracles - " ... we may conclude that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: and whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience."

[Alison]

Having to use books now, Vinters ?

What is the evidence for prayer making recovery less likely ?

[MrGongGong]

Having to use books now, Vinters ?

What is the evidence for prayer making recovery less likely ?

I think this is the study I meant (or an article about it......... but it shouldn't be hard to find)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

[scottycelt]

I think this is the study I meant (or an article about it......... but it shouldn't be hard to find)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/he...ewanted=1&_r=0

And right next to that old article an advert popped up for some moisturiser called The New Miracle ...

[scottycelt]

I hear the sound of barrels being scraped.

Why are the people involved "in the best position to know"? What kind of illnesses were they? Presumably none of them involved something like regrowing an amputated limb? (As opposed for example to "spontaneous" remission from cancer for which there are well-understood mechanisms that don't require divine intervention.) The paucity of examples of that kind of thing would suggest that there are strict limits to what kinds of medical conditions prayer can "help" with. Why should that be, I wonder?

Spaghetti monsters, flying teapots, and now we're hearing the scraping of barrels ...

The people involved in the best position to know are certainly not you and I unless either one of us happens to be a medical expert with the case history of each example of unusual and unexpected recovery. Obviously the medical staff concerned along with the patient are the most likely to be in the best position to know the facts.

I'm not claiming any of these unusual cases are 'miracles' as I'm not a medical expert with knowledge of each case.. What I do know is that if the medical staff involved concede that there has been an extraordinary cure of a patient which they cannot explain, I assume they know what they are talking about. If the patient is convinced that the recovery took place because they prayed for that very outcome, that sounds as good as a 'miracle' to me whether we prefer to give it that name or not!

Maybe dreaming of monsters and flying teapots might do the same for others, I really don't know, but if it works for the sick person concerned why knock it?

[Pabmusic]

Having to use books now, Vinters ?

What is the evidence for prayer making recovery less likely ?

I too would have to use a book to get David Hume's 18th-Century English right. The point is rather good tough - would it be even more of a miracle for it not to be true?

As for studies of prayer, there's only been one that has been rigorous enough to count - the Harvard study of 2006. It studied 1802 chronic artery disease patients who had bypasses. Complications occurred in 52% of those who received prayers, and 51% of those who didn't. But 59% of those who knew they were going to receive the prayers developed complications. The study (the STEP) project is covered quite well here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies...cessory_prayer

[scottycelt]

As that great Scotsman Hume put it [ Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding ] -

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. ... When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he relates should really have happened."

Hume concludes his section on Miracles - " ... we may conclude that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: and whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience."

There have no doubt been many thousands of great Scotsmen with a whole host of different views. Hume was an agnostic/atheist so his comments are quite predictable and unremarkable, and tell us nothing new on the matter of belief and non-belief.

As the down-to-earth old saying goes, 'he would have said that, wouldn't he ... ?'

[Pabmusic]

...I'm not claiming any of these unusual cases are 'miracles' as I'm not a medical expert with knowledge of each case.. What I do know is that if the medical staff involved concede that there has been an extraordinary cure of a patient which they cannot explain, I assume they know what they are talking about. If the patient is convinced that the recovery took place because they prayed for that very outcome, that sounds as good as a 'miracle' to me whether we prefer to give it that name or not!...

I'm pleased to see that you're not claiming that these cases are miracles. Claiming that apparently unexplained events are miracles has been what we've done for thousands of years. "The sun has returned after the long winter - it's a miracle! Let's sacrifice someone!" Apart from the cost in human (and other) life, to accept the unexplained as magic is to avoid the truth completely. Isn't it better to want to understand what is real, even if we don't yet have all the answers?

[Simon]

Thias is turning out to be a more interesting thread than I thought it would. (Apart, of course, from the rather silly pint pots and "hoorays" from the usual suspects who probably haven't understood the comments they are approving but who clearly feel it incumbent upon them to give an internmittent cheer for anyone fighting the atheist corner, irrespective of merit.)

Some of the arguments on both sides are a bit predictable, IIMSS, and many of them are not really the sort that I'd expect on here: one would expect more originality than, for example, quoting (of all people) the pedestrian Hume. But, having come back from a weekend away, it has been refreshing to read a fairly civilised exchange of views. I look forward to joining the discussion a little later, if I have time.

++++++++++

But in the interim, I have an important announcement to make. I made a comment earlier, when our friend Am51 explained to us that he had managed to assess and dismiss religious doctrine by the time he was four, and hadn't given it much time since. I laughed at this, and made a derogatory post about the level of many of his "arguments".

Having had a couple of days away relaxing at the coast, the thought crossed my mind that I should perhaps not have been so quick to mock. "What if", I thought "Am51 really had received some level of understanding far beyond the norm?"

Because, for 2000+ years, some of the greatest minds in the world have assessed, analysed, argued about and then either accepted or rejected the rationality of the Christian belief. Billions of people have lived by its teachings, have found their lives altered, have achieved great feats of scholarship, self-sacrifice, nobility, strength of mind and purpose, of art. People of great intellect - writers, theologians, scientists - have for centuries, right down to the nuclear physicists of today, researched, evaluated and eventually accepted the logic of it. C.S. Lewis, the atheist, took a double first at Oxford and then, after attacking Christianity as a "myth" found that, during his studies of myths, Christianity wasn't one. He checked out the major world belief systems and then chose Christianity.

So, ladies and gentlemen, if Am51, at age FOUR, was of such supreme intelligence as to be able to dismiss Christianity as a waste of time, we may have to accept that we are, indeed, in the presence of an almost unimaginable greatness. I don't know about you lot, but I feel humbled.

All I would ask from him - and it's not much, really, for so great a mind - is for just a couple of paragraphs to explain to us lesser mortals who have studied, researched, thought about and ultimately accepted Christianity how we got it so wrong. Then we can stop thinking about it all and go down to the pub.

bws S-S!

[scottycelt]

I'm pleased to see that you're not claiming that these cases are miracles. Claiming that apparently unexplained events are miracles has been what we've done for thousands of years. "The sun has returned after the long winter - it's a miracle! Let's sacrifice someone!" Apart from the cost in human (and other) life, to accept the unexplained as magic is to avoid the truth completely. Isn't it better to want to understand what is real, even if we don't yet have all the answers?

And I'm also not claiming that these are not miracles, unlike you appear to be doing without presumably, like myself, any proper knowledge of the facts. If I didn't believe in the Resurrection because of all the evidence and witnesses of those around at the time I wouldn't be a Christian. I see miracles daily all around me. The fact of life itself and the world which I inhabit seems a pretty big miracle to me. All I'm saying is that any modern event that is described as a miracle should be subject to the closest scrutiny and tests by scientists and Devil's Advocates which, of course, is already the inevitable consequence of any such claim. I, being ignorant of the facts of fresh claims, leave such things for the scientific experts and others to investigate. I assumed you might have adopted a similar approach.

Everyone agrees the idea of a miracle conflicts with 'reason' which is precisely why these are called miracles in the first place! Plenty of cases of claims of 'miracles' are thrown out by the Church authorities due to lack of convincing evidence. 'Miracle' is an over-used word these days to describe the performance of moisturisers and washing-powders etc but a real miracle is an extraordinary POSITIVE EVENT which cannot be explained by science or reason and completely baffles those suitably qualified to investigate.

Forgive me, but where am I avoiding the truth and not accepting something which is 'real'? You also now appear to be getting very close to suggesting yourself that none of these officially accepted and recorded 'unexplained' events ever actually occurred? I bet these were very 'real' to the people directly involved, if not to you or I.

PS ... we've had spaghetti monsters, orbiting teapots, scraped barrels and now the sacrifice of some poor wretch when the sun comes out ...oh, PLEASE ...

[MrGongGong]

I bet these were very 'real' to the people directly involved, if not to you or I.

"Daaad"
"Yes"
"are the Wombles real ?"
"Yes they are son, they're real puppets"

This is interesting ........

C.S. Lewis, the atheist, took a double first at Oxford and then, after attacking Christianity as a "myth" found that, during his studies of myths, Christianity wasn't one. He checked out the major world belief systems and then chose Christianity.

One makes choices for many reasons
does the fact that he went to Oxford make his conclusions right ?
to say that christianity (or really what we have is more "Paulism" than the teachings of Christ) isn't a myth is more than a little absurd
Which part isn't a myth ?
all of it or just the bits that folk feel comfortable about these days ?

the Bible ? (it's full of myths)
the bits that were left out ?
the rising from the dead, bread into wine, pigs off the cliff, alien abduction into the sky stuff, virgin birth stuff ?

[heliocentric]

Plenty of cases of claims of 'miracles' are thrown out by the Church authorities due to lack of convincing evidence.

But the flying House of Loreto mentioned earlier by Vinteuil is kept in... did someone use their mobile phone to film it landing perhaps?

[amateur51]

Spaghetti monsters, flying teapots, and now we're hearing the scraping of barrels ...

The people involved in the best position to know are certainly not you and I unless either one of us happens to be a medical expert with the case history of each example of unusual and unexpected recovery. Obviously the medical staff concerned along with the patient are the most likely to be in the best position to know the facts.

I'm not claiming any of these unusual cases are 'miracles' as I'm not a medical expert with knowledge of each case.. What I do know is that if the medical staff involved concede that there has been an extraordinary cure of a patient which they cannot explain, I assume they know what they are talking about. If the patient is convinced that the recovery took place because they prayed for that very outcome, that sounds as good as a 'miracle' to me whether we prefer to give it that name or not!

Maybe dreaming of monsters and flying teapots might do the same for others, I really don't know, but if it works for the sick person concerned why knock it?

As James Randi, professional debunker, once said on a radio phone-in programme to someone making a similar claim re prayer & cancer recovery "Tell me Sir, if you and all your friends had changed your brand of peanut butter at the same time and your friend had recovered, would you claim that as a miracle?"