Dead people perform miracels, Pope agrees...

stevejazzx

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/20/2776867.htm

So the Pope has moved Mary McKillop closer to canonization by declaring this latest event (see link) a bonafide miracle. It strikes me as odd the randomness at which these miracles occur. I mean how many people pray every day for something? Hundreds of millions? Yet just the odd one is answered? Now we don't know which rules God plays by but that's a bad scorecard for anyone.
And how does the Pope know this is a miracle and not just some kind of medical anomaly? Madness I tell you, yet another example of religious cherry picking.

hiorta

Who decides whom becomes a 'saint' - god or man? Naturally enough the Catholic Church only considers those of their own persuasion as candidates.

Sam Vimes

hiorta wrote: »

Who decides whom becomes a 'saint' - god or man?

I would say that not existing is quite a hindrance to god choosing who becomes a saint.

liamw

This is just embarassing

pts

stevejazzx wrote: »

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/20/2776867.htm

So the Pope has moved Mary McKillop closer to canonization by declaring this latest event (see link) a bone fide miracle. It strikes me as odd the randomness at which these miracles occur. I mean how many people pray every day for something? Hundreds of millions? Yet just the odd one is answered? Now we don't know which rules God plays by but that's a bad scorecard for anyone.
And how does the Pope know this is a miracle and not just some kind of medical anomaly? Madness I tell you, yet another example of religious cherry picking.

I always found the miracle requirement very interesting. If the Vatican actually believes that candidates for sainthood have performed miracles why don't they get sceptical scientists to investigate the alleged miracles?
If the "miracle" is confirmed to be a bonafide act of something supernatural the church can claim the $1 million offered to anyone proving the supernatural and use it to argue for the existence of their chosen deity.

I find the fact that they don't do this very telling.

Petrovia

stevejazzx wrote: »

It strikes me as odd the randomness at which these miracles occur. I mean how many people pray every day for something? Hundreds of millions? Yet just the odd one is answered? Now we don't know which rules God plays by but that's a bad scorecard for anyone.
And how does the Pope know this is a miracle and not just some kind of medical anomaly? Madness I tell you, yet another example of religious cherry picking.

Obviously it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, statistically speaking. The funny thing is that you could bet that if there was some statistically significant result found for prayer curing people*, the Church would be all over it. They're happy ignoring blatant facts which don't suit them though. But that's nothing new. In fact, it's depressingly old.

*which would never happen, but let's pretend.

Dades

Sam Vimes

pts wrote: »

If the "miracle" is confirmed to be a bonafide act of something supernatural the church can claim the $1 million offered to anyone proving the supernatural and use it to argue for the existence of their chosen deity.

I find the fact that they don't do this very telling.

randi.org wrote:

2.5 Why can’t I submit a religious or spiritual claim?

Because they are, for the most part, untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – say surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning and say “This was the hand of God,” but the point of the Challenge isn’t to give anecdotal evidence. It is to give something testable. Most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God. We’re pretty sure they’re right, though perhaps for different reasons.

Unfortunately they don't accept religious claims, although they might if a proper test could be defined for prayer

pts

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Unfortunately they don't accept religious claims, although they might if a proper test could be defined for prayer

Hm, that's interesting. I guess in my gullibility I assumed that a "miracle" was something that actually was testable. Not just some person feeling better after an auld prayer. I should have known better...

stevejazzx

Petrovia wrote: »

Obviously it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, statistically speaking. The funny thing is that you could bet that if there was some statistically significant result found for prayer curing people*, the Church would be all over it. They're happy ignoring blatant facts which don't suit them though. But that's nothing new. In fact, it's depressingly old.

*which would never happen, but let's pretend.

There have been some reports of 'positive' results posted on here in the past in relation to intercessory prayer. Quite how the resulfs were scientifically discerned I have no idea.
here's a good article
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/739

robindch

Dades wrote: »

hmmm... Popepalm?

aidan24326

liamw wrote: »

This is just embarassing

Not especially. In the grand scheme of things this is fairly lightweight. She prayed and she was cured. It's a miracle!!!

Does it ever dawn on Benny and his friends that countless millions pray for all kinds of things day after day and are met with deafening silence? I mean if thousands of people are praying right now to have their illness or affliction cured it's hardly a surprise if a few of them get better just by chance. Have these morons any powers of reasoning at all? Knock Knock is there anyone home?

pts

aidan24326 wrote: »

Knock Knock is there anyone home?

Yes.....

Ickle Magoo

Maybe that's the miracle, that anyone listened to a prayer and bothered doing something about it - the 0.000000001% of terminal cancer sufferers that God has bothered to step in and save? This miracle and saint thing makes no sense.

aidan24326

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Maybe that's the miracle, that anyone listened to a prayer and bothered doing something about it - the 0.000000001% of terminal cancer sufferers that God has bothered to step in and save? This miracle and saint thing makes no sense.

Of course it doesn't. But then most of the other stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense either when you think about it.

For all the sick patients that god cures, he seems to let an awful lot of them die, even where a whole lot of person-hours of prayer are involved. But try telling this to a religious person and we're right back to facepalm territory.

Petrovia

stevejazzx wrote: »

There have been some reports of 'positive' results posted on here in the past in relation to intercessory prayer. Quite how the resulfs were scientifically discerned I have no idea.
here's a good article
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/739

Hmmm yes, now I look into it there seem to be some positive studies around. A lot of neutral ones (i.e. no effect) as well though. I also just read about another meta-analysis of similar studies which showed no effect. Why are the results of research into the same thing so varied? It's a bit odd and would lead me to believe that some of these studies use flawed methods. Unless it was the hand of god, of course

But I take back what I said about the church! I really would've thought they would have been all over it, turns out I was wrong!

stevejazzx

Petrovia wrote: »

Hmmm yes, now I look into it there seem to be some positive studies around. A lot of neutral ones (i.e. no effect) as well though. I also just read about another meta-analysis of similar studies which showed no effect. Why are the results of research into the same thing so varied? It's a bit odd and would lead me to believe that some of these studies use flawed methods. Unless it was the hand of god, of course

But I take back what I said about the church! I really would've thought they would have been all over it, turns out I was wrong!

I think the metohds could be excellent, still wouldn't change the fact that all (most of) the data is subjective i.e

Examinier: "do you feel better as result of your prayers"

Subject: "oh yes, of course, the good lord is watching over me, mind you another problem has started since but don't worry I'm praying for that too...give a week or so should be alright"

Examiner:"usually takes a week does it..?"

Subject: "well, he's a busy man"

Petrovia

stevejazzx wrote: »

I think the metohds could be excellent, still wouldn't change the fact that all (most of) the data is subjective i.e

Examinier: "do you feel better as result of your prayers"

Subject: "oh yes, of course, the good lord is watching over me, mind you another problem has started since but don't worry I'm praying for that too...give a week or so should be alright"

Examiner:"usually takes a week does it..?"

Subject: "well, he's a busy man"

Haha, well, technically, using that type of data is part of the method!

The research you linked to earlier was about long-distance prayer anyway, where you can have 2 groups: one that IS being prayed for and one that is not being prayed for (and then you tell both groups that they're being prayed for, or you don't tell either of them). Therefore you can check whether it isn't just the placebo effect taking place like in the above. I mean if someone from the non-prayer group starts telling you they feel better due to the praying you know it's just because they think they're being prayed for - because they weren't actually prayed for.

...But that still doesn't mean the method can't be flawed. Lots of way for it to be flawed, unfortunately.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

hmmm... Popepalm?

Nah, that was him when he found out Darth Maul had been cut in two.

aidan24326 wrote: »

Does it ever dawn on Benny and his friends that countless millions pray for all kinds of things day after day and are met with deafening silence?

And sometimes it is not the answer you want...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28812

Found this as well, I love the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28151

MrP

toiletduck

Even dyed-in-the-wool Catholics must be wondering about the recent (well since JPII) explosion in canonisation.

MrPudding

The population of the earth is increasing, so assuming the ratio of saint to "normals" remains relatively stable it would seem obvious we would have more saints being canonised.

MrP

robindch

toiletduck wrote: »

Even dyed-in-the-wool Catholics must be wondering about the recent (well since JPII) explosion in canonisation.

In the ever-appropriate words of Cicero, Cui bono?

A lot of people make a lot of money, or gain a lot of status (or both), when somebody's canonized. I don't think you need to look much further than that.

BTW, in North Korea, the state has grades of state-endowed, and publicly-acknowledged, heroism which are roughly equivalent in honor to the Vatican's "blessed" and "saint". And just like the Vatican, you can't gain this status while you're alive. For obvious political reasons.

Galvasean

toiletduck wrote: »

Even dyed-in-the-wool Catholics must be wondering about the recent (well since JPII) explosion in canonisation.

Ah Jurassic Park 2, what a movie

Dades

I'm thanking you, though I don't get it. Did watch JP2 last week as well!

aidan24326

robindch wrote: »

BTW, in North Korea, the state has grades of state-endowed, and publicly-acknowledged, heroism which are roughly equivalent in honor to the Vatican's "blessed" and "saint". And just like the Vatican, you can't gain this status while you're alive. For obvious political reasons.

Yes and the 'Dear Leader' himself has an official title to make any saint jealous.

Slightly off topic but I particularly like this excerpt from his wiki page
Many North Koreans believe that he has the "magical" ability to "control the weather" based on his mood.

I don't think even good old JC himself ever claimed that talent.

Comer1

aidan24326 wrote: »

Does it ever dawn on Benny and his friends that countless millions pray for all kinds of things day after day and are met with deafening silence?

They didn't pray hard enough
They didn't have enough faith
God was saving them from a much worse fate if they lived through their illness
God loved him/her too much to wait until they were old to have them in Heaven with Him (my personal favourite)
...and so on

And if all else fails, there is always the old favourite "God works in mysterious ways"

When God grows back someones leg, heck, even a little finger...Only then will I be impressed

aidan24326

Comer1 wrote: »

And if all else fails, there is always the old favourite "God works in mysterious ways"

You know they're struggling when they pull that one out of the bag, but there's not much you can even say in reply to that.

When God grows back someones leg, heck, even a little finger...Only then will I be impressed

Same here. God's mid-term report would read 'Must try harder'.

Kipperhell

hiorta wrote: »

Who decides whom becomes a 'saint' - god or man? Naturally enough the Catholic Church only considers those of their own persuasion as candidates.

Aren't they the only people who can claim to have saints anyway as they control the score board?

aidan24326

hiorta wrote: »

Who decides whom becomes a 'saint' - god or man? Naturally enough the Catholic Church only considers those of their own persuasion as candidates.

The Pope confers sainthood but he is god's spokesperson on earth so I guess really it's god deciding. Through the pope. Or something like that.

dvpower

aidan24326 wrote: »

Yes and the 'Dear Leader' himself has an official title to make any saint jealous.

Slightly off topic but I particularly like this excerpt from his wiki page
Many North Koreans believe that he has the "magical" ability to "control the weather" based on his mood.

I don't think even good old JC himself ever claimed that talent.

Oh yes He* did.

Ex. 9:13&#8211 wrote: »

The LORD sent thunder and hail, and lightning flashed down to the ground. So the LORD rained hail on the land of Egypt; hail fell and lightning flashed back and forth. It was the worst storm in all the land of Egypt since it had become a nation.

*Well, his Dad (who is himself)