Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Discussion on Lourdes miracles


This discussion took place on Metacrock;'s blog please read the original article above: a team of medical historians finds Lourdes's miracles can't be explained, Eric Sotnak a real Prof of Philosophy argues with me,

Joe Hinman said...
Hi Eric, glad you stopped by

Eric: There are multiple questions here, but let’s start with a basic point I am sure everyone should agree on:

Before seeking an explanation for X, it must first be ascertained whether X in fact occurred, and also whether X occurred in the manner described.

Meta: the original article i summarized was written by as team of medical historians and published in peer reviewed journal, They were pretty sure the things happened, They did a full through investigation. More importantly the modern Lourde's medical research set up is impressive.,I'll link to stuff abouit it below.

So let’s consider one of the cases described in the article: 
“An interesting example is the very unusual two-step cure of Pierre Terrier, living in LarĂ©ole near Toulouse, a sixty-six-year-old man whose horse-drawn cart overturned in February 1873. One of the wheels crushed his leg, the soft tissue was torn to pieces, the tibia was fractured, and soon gangrene set in. The patient's wife resolved to wash the wound with Lourdes water. The next day, the gangrene had disappeared, but the fracture did not heal and the twisted leg made walking very difficult, even with the aid of a stick. Nine years later, on August 29, 1882, the patient went to Lourdes and was surprised to be able to follow the evening procession. On August 30, as soon as Mr. Terrier was plunged into the Lourdes baths of spring water (“piscines”), he had a strange perception in his leg and noticed that his leg stood straight. From then on, walking was problem-free.”

This does, indeed, sound remarkable. But how do we know this actually occurred? Have all the details of this account been verified? How assiduously did those who originally recorded this account attempt to verify its details? Who were those recorders and how, exactly, did they attempt to verify it? How many people did they interview and who were they? Are there medical records? Etc.

First of all the only way we know anything in history happened is because people write about it in documents, These instances have been studied thoroughly long before the medical, historian tired it, there are books about them. The medical historians lived in the archives for months so with all the integrity of any peer received historical article (given scholastically caution) that is the best any historian can offer, all things can be questioned,even Trump's power,;-)

The historians in this article studied the period before the rules, that;s because the period after the rules about 1920s to present are so well documented no way to question basic facts,it's this earlier period that needed study. Did this happen was not the question they were left with at the end but how to explain it without saying "miracle,"

Joe Hinman said...
This isn’t just knee-jerk skepticism. One of my favorite podcasts is Skeptoid. One thing I have learned after listening to hundreds of episodes is that MANY apparently mysterious or inexplicable events turn out to have what we might call “murky” origins. Real events have fictionalized details or exaggerations added on to them, and stories that originate as works of fiction get repeated as factual. This is why the principle I articulated above is so important. We shouldn’t even try to compare different possible explanations until we have first verified that there is something standing in need of explanation. The authors even admit that: “These accounts were still sketchy and many of the cures seem to have been recorded on the word of the patients and witnesses. Furthermore, no distinction was made between genuine cures (i.e., somatic, authentic cures), mere improvements, and functional, nervous, disorders.”

Yes I agree but you are assume that this team of historians are not capable of being as-skeptical as you are and of demanding good documented cases. Allow me to speak for all my fellow historians, we historians are just as capable as philosophers of being skeptical and demanding rigor; read the original article.We historians also challenge the philosophers to water balloons at 2o paces,

But that was a very old case, and the article mainly focusses on more recent cases where better records were surely available. Still, the inclusion of such a dramatic and not clearly verified case in the article raises what I think are legitimate concerns about the objectivity of the authors.

you talking about my article? you read it? i think a more important point is what is said about modern Lourdes evidence being so well documented,

But let’s consider a different skeptical concern – the natures of the conditions. I suggest the following principle:

If C is an instance of a miraculous cure, then the frequency of C’s occurrence should not correlate with the frequency of non-miraculous recoveries from the malady in question.

In other words, miraculous recoveries should be just as common among people suffering from rarely cured conditions as from commonly cured conditions.

I disagree.It's based upon the fallacy that we can expect God to work regulatory like a machine or a part of nature, Three is a whole theological literature on my that is not the case. You have to go empirically case by case.

This is what is behind the oft-repeated observation that one doesn’t find discarded artificial limbs at Lourdes.

That is also a fallacy, true it's extremely rare. But there are examples not of Lourdes but in the Vatican archives associated with certain saints.I know this is true because I .spoken with a Lourdes researcher who did research in the Vatican archive and found such an example.

Where are all the people with miraculously regrown limbs? Are people as likely to be cured of diabetes after visiting Lourdes as of back pain? Huntington’s disease? Cystic fibrosis? If allegedly miraculous recovery rates from different conditions are highly variable, why?

LOOK THE MECHANISM that does the healing is a will and a volitional consciousness; the healing has a raison d'etre related to this consciousness' overall purpose so why should we assume healing should be automatic and therefore conform to the demography of nature?

No comments: