Religious Miracles [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

The Atheist

11-08-2010, 11:30 AM

Do religious miracles become less spectacular and more "believable" as we get closer to the present time?

The standards of evidence of and the actual miracles claimed for both Mary McKillop and Mother Theresa would tend to indicate that's the case.

That there is no reason to believe that one has ever occurred. It's a question of probability. What's more likely: that the laws of nature were violated, or that someone got the story wrong or just made it up? Considering what we know about human psychology, I'd say the latter is far more probable.

Bingo!

Claims: several million. Evidence: nil.

To the OP, I don't agree with the premise that miracles get progressively less impressive as history progresses. I think raising the dead and a virgin giving birth to a son are up there in the "wow" range of miracles.

That is a lot of history ago, which is what the thread asks - why are there none today?

I like the question myself. If the god-figure was so determined to make people accept him on faith alone, why were the people of ~20 AD different? What made him/it think that mere unsupported rumour would suffice as evidence of his existence some 20 centuries later? Why were people in Jesus' age so special that they were even granted the favour to feel the wound on his dead body?

If a pal of Jesus was allowed physical evidence that his buddy had been resurrected, why are 7 billion people excluded from being given just one piece of hard evidence?

As far as those who dispute the idea that miracles ever occur/ed, I commend the book Miracles by C.S. Lewis.

Yes, good old Mr Apologetics himself, C S Lewis.

When arguing the impossible, always build a good strawman first - Lewis really ought to have written the Wizard of Oz.

The overwhelming majority of rationalists - people who believe in evidential/epistemological approach - don't dismiss anything out of hand, they evaluate the evidence.

In terms of evidence of the supernatural, we're still waiting.

I consider the people who have had "near-death" experiences to have experienced a "miracle" in the sense that they were "sent back" temporarily. They were not just resuscitated. So they died and, with or without some medical attention, resurrected.

What then, of people "die" and are brought back with no NDE? How do you determine which is a miraculous escape and which is due to medical science?

A question I have is how does Christianity deal with near-death experiences?

I suspect Christianity would reject these as miracles. I also suspect many atheists would reject these as miracles. My guess is that on this level the Christians and atheists at least have a point of agreement, but I may be wrong.

As far as I can tell, theists use them as evidence for god. Atheists have differing opinions, but rationalists would use them as evidence of the brain doing odd things due to oxygen deprivation/CO2 poisoning/other things or any combination thereof.

It's not like we can do much research on it!

Wanted:

Volunteers for medical study.

You will be anaesthetised, then killed, so that you may be resuscitated to check for NDEs.

Depends what the pay is, I guess.

:)

Cunninglinguist

11-08-2010, 12:40 PM

As far as those who dispute the idea that miracles ever occur/ed, I commend the book Miracles by C.S. Lewis. It shows some of the weaknesses in assuming a priori that supernatural actions are impossible. Also, the idea that the ancients were rubes and fools, seeing miracles where a modern would see science is severely flawed. Mary knew where babies came from. Mary knew that no one, even Joseph who loved her dearly, would believe her if she said, "I'm still a virgin" once her belly started to grow. Miracles were impossible things back then too.

The point C. S. Lewis makes is, in essence, the same one that Hume et al have made, which is the problem of induction. i.e. that you cannot deductively prove miracles ever happened, nor can you disprove them. On the one hand, when people understand this it grants that much more room for religious faith. On the other hand, giving faith more room can be less than favorable, leading to destructive moral practices among other things. For the sake of practicality, humankind’s well-being, and Occam’s razor we should probably denounce miracles, even if we cannot deductively justify doing so.

That is a lot of history ago, which is what the thread asks - why are there none today?

I like the question myself. If the god-figure was so determined to make people accept him on faith alone, why were the people of ~20 AD different? What made him/it think that mere unsupported rumour would suffice as evidence of his existence some 20 centuries later? Why were people in Jesus' age so special that they were even granted the favour to feel the wound on his dead body?

If a pal of Jesus was allowed physical evidence that his buddy had been resurrected, why are 7 billion people excluded from being given just one piece of hard evidence?

I imagine a lot of theists would say “because he’s testing our faith” or “How can we know God’s grand plan?” or something along those lines.

The overwhelming majority of rationalists - people who believe in evidential/epistemological approach - don't dismiss anything out of hand, they evaluate the evidence.

I think it’s important to point out even though you’re not making this error, just because there is no evidence for a claim does not mean the claim is false: was the world flat even when we had no evidence that it was round? A rationalist cannot dismiss anything unless there is evidence that dismisses it too.

As far as I can tell, theists use them as evidence for god. Atheists have differing opinions, but rationalists would use them as evidence of the brain doing odd things due to oxygen deprivation/CO2 poisoning/other things or any combination thereof.

I don’t know how many theists use miracles as evidence of God, but I could believe it’s quite a few – though in my experience a good sum of the responses to questions concerning the existence of God and miracles start out with “that’s why it’s called faith” and end with “that’s why it’s called faith,” or, at least, they always end that way.

MarkBastable

11-08-2010, 12:51 PM

was the world flat even when we had no evidence that it was round?

Actually, we did have evidence that it was round - we just failed to interpret it correctly. In Jumpers (I think that's the play I mean), Stoppard cites an exchange between Wittgenstein (I think that's the philosopher I mean) and a student he buttonholes in the quadrangle...

Wittgenstein: I've been thinking: why did people once believe that the sun went round the Earth?

Student: Er...I suppose because it looks as though the sun goes round the Earth.

Wittgenstein: Oh. In which case, what would it look like if the Earth went round the sun?

OrphanPip

11-08-2010, 01:00 PM

Indeed, it is remarkable. It shows what a strong pull religious beliefs have on people.

The breakdown of the stats are interesting too, as older scientist are less likely to be religious than younger scientist. Psychologist and physicist are the least religious, while chemist are the most religious. Biologist are in the middle, but strikingly overwhelmingly deny creationism and Intelligent Design.

I would say very few religious scientist actually take religious doctrine literally.

AuntShecky

11-08-2010, 02:05 PM

The most famous case is of physicist Stephen Hawkings wondering out loud in one of his books if we might soon know "the mind of God".

I thought it was Einstein.

Edited 11/9/10: Actually, you may be right on this one. Einstein was the one who said that "God does not play dice with the Universe."

I've been reading online articles which contend that Dr.
Hawking's original stated stance on religion seems to have changed somewhat from what it was in A Brief History of Time to his opinion on the matter in the latest work.

Here's are some listings:

(This article refutes that Stephen Hawking is an atheist)
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

The following passage is from this web page
"junk science" in The Grand Design
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090704.html
(I caution you that the author of that article has a pro-religious ax to grind.)
Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/stephen-hawking-says-god-did-not-create-the-universe

This one is really wonky:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/hawking.html

Far be it from me, a lifelong sufferer of math anxiety, to take issue with Dr. Hawking's findings, but what I find amusing is that he places more credence in the probability
of creatures from other planets invading earth than he does on the existence of a Supreme Being. I hasten to repeat that's up to him and his right. But I still think it's a little peculiar.

hoope

11-08-2010, 02:55 PM

What then, of people "die" and are brought back with no NDE? How do you determine which is a miraculous escape and which is due to medical science?

As far as I can tell, theists use them as evidence for god. Atheists have differing opinions, but rationalists would use them as evidence of the brain doing odd things due to oxygen deprivation/CO2 poisoning/other things or any combination thereof.

It's not like we can do much research on it!

:)

Well maybe YESNO .. had a point in here.. coz yes there are people who are saved from an unexplained death experience .. and you don't need to tell me that it don't happen coz am nurse and i saw it. When doctors can't do anything , and all the monitors show that this patient won't survive.. BUT HE DOES ! Its a miracle.. or in fact a superior power acted. Something that we can't have any hand in. It's just not explained and they live and its there.

However, this type of miracle is different from that we are discussing , we are talking about mircles that prophets had.. miracles that Moses did and Jesus too.. Miracles that as BienvenuJDC were to proof something , to prove the power God and that he existed.

I believe that God had a purpose for miracles which was to establish His communication to man. When He sent Christ to establish Christianity, He confirmed the things with miracles, but once they were confirmed there was no longer a need for additional miracles. I don't believe in present day miracles.

Ecurb

11-08-2010, 06:12 PM

The overwhelming majority of rationalists - people who believe in evidential/epistemological approach - don't dismiss anything out of hand, they evaluate the evidence.

In terms of evidence of the supernatural, we're still waiting.

Huh? There's plenty of evidence for the supernatural -- it's just not "hard"
enough to suit you. Evidence includes: eye witness accounts, written records, etc. etc. Of course if we demand "scientific" evidence for the supernatural, we won't find it. That's because "science" is specifically designed to examine the natural world.

What's strange (to me) is to deny that there is any evidence. If we were in a court of law, on what grounds would we deny that Doubting Thomas's personal testimony of feeling the holes in Jesus' hands constitutes "evidence". I'll grant that we need not find the evidence persuasive -- but surely it constitutes evidence, and would not be excluded by any reasonable judge.

YesNo

11-09-2010, 12:00 AM

As far as I can tell, theists use them as evidence for god. Atheists have differing opinions, but rationalists would use them as evidence of the brain doing odd things due to oxygen deprivation/CO2 poisoning/other things or any combination thereof.
I suspect that Christians could very easily have problems with near-death experiences.

Why?

Because people who are not Christians, not even religious, have positive near-death experiences. If Jesus is the only way, how is that possible? It also looks like no one needs to wait for a final judgment to occur. So how does that sync up with the book of Revelation?

I also think Buddhists would have problems with NDEs considering their "non-Atman" approach to the "soul", but I am not as familiar with that religion.

Consider the original question of this thread: Do religious miracles become less spectacular and more "believable" as we get closer to the present time? What can be more spectacular than the "miracle" of resurrection especially if the person having the experience tells you they were "sent back"?

I don't think that NDEs mean that there is a God or even a bunch of Gods that fit any particular theology. They mean that the world is far more mysterious, and perhaps far more friendly, than most of us realize.

papayahed

11-09-2010, 08:41 AM

YesNo

11-09-2010, 12:44 PM

Let's not forget that "near death experiences" have also been experienced by pilots undergoing G-force tests. They are know where near death yet they have reported the same type of experiences.

Yes, I agree.

I think it was Raymond Moody who coined the word "near-death experience" in a book called Life After Life. He also was looking for ways to simulate the experience without having to actually die.

Perhaps people who "meditate" experience something like this as well. I don't know.

If I understood your concern, I agree that the experience is "natural" and "normal". It is only "supernatural" or "paranormal" or even "miraculous" for those who find dying and coming back to life later to be an impossibility or something only a God can perform.

There is an early account of a near-death experience in Plato's Republic, Book 10. I think the second half and is known as "the myth of Er": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er . Plato doesn't look at it as miraculous, but builds a theory of reincarnation upon it based on Er's account.

The Atheist

11-09-2010, 01:37 PM

I think it’s important to point out even though you’re not making this error, just because there is no evidence for a claim does not mean the claim is false: was the world flat even when we had no evidence that it was round? A rationalist cannot dismiss anything unless there is evidence that dismisses it too.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd actually read my posts before replying to them and telling me I was wrong, before paraphrasing what I said.

I specifically stated, and I quote:

The overwhelming majority of rationalists - people who believe in evidential/epistemological approach - don't dismiss anything out of hand, they evaluate the evidence.

Your comment doesn't relate to what I said at all, and in fact is a mere re-phrasing of my position.

Please note the bolded pieces.

Well maybe YESNO .. had a point in here.. coz yes there are people who are saved from an unexplained death experience .. and you don't need to tell me that it don't happen coz am nurse and i saw it.

No, I can tell you it sometimes doesn't happen thanks to evidence from those who have "died" as much as anyone experiencing an NDE. Kerry Packer is a famous example of one person who died after a heart attack, was resuscitated and reported nothing at all. I know of other examples, but he's one publicly-known case where his comments were public and widely-reported.

When doctors can't do anything , and all the monitors show that this patient won't survive.. BUT HE DOES ! Its a miracle.. or in fact a superior power acted. Something that we can't have any hand in. It's just not explained and they live and its there.

No.

Even the Catholic church, with its team of people paid to find miracles only manage to find very rare cases of what they consider "miraculous" healing.

I have to say that I find your language and claims of being a nurse are somewhat at odds. I cannot think of case where a monitor would show that a patient will not survive. Unless some smart company has invented a new "life prediction machine" that I haven't heard about yet, no present medical equipment is prognostic without analysis.

A nurse knows this. A nurse also knows that doctors are, surprisingly frequently, wrong.

However, this type of miracle is different from that we are discussing , we are talking about mircles that prophets had.. miracles that Moses did and Jesus too.. Miracles that as BienvenuJDC were to proof something , to prove the power God and that he existed.

They are exactly the same - divine miracles.

If there were medical miracles of supernatural origin, that would be every bit as big as uncovering Noah's Ark, complete with a pair of fossilised unicorns.

Huh? There's plenty of evidence for the supernatural -- it's just not "hard"
enough to suit you. Evidence includes: eye witness accounts, written records, etc. etc. Of course if we demand "scientific" evidence for the supernatural, we won't find it. That's because "science" is specifically designed to examine the natural world.

This is nonsense.

If you had the slightest experience with eyewitness accounts, you'd realise that personal anecdotes are extremely unreliable.

Secondly, a huge amount of historical and eyewitness accounts make claims that would be verifiable by scientific enquiry.

A dead person, killed by multiple trauma, resurrecting. That'd work.

As soon as a claim is made that a supernatural force can interact with the physical world, it must, by nature, be measurable.

I suspect that Christians could very easily have problems with near-death experiences.

Why?

Because people who are not Christians, not even religious, have positive near-death experiences. If Jesus is the only way, how is that possible? It also looks like no one needs to wait for a final judgment to occur. So how does that sync up with the book of Revelation?

The ones who don't have an NDE are headed for purgatory.

;)

Let's not forget that "near death experiences" have also been experienced by pilots undergoing G-force tests. They are know where near death yet they have reported the same type of experiences.

Cunninglinguist

11-09-2010, 01:44 PM

Actually, we did have evidence that it was round - we just failed to interpret it correctly.

Yes & no. It depends on what period of time and which civilization you’re looking at. A hunter-gatherer society of cavemen did not have this evidence. From the unaided (I will live this term ambiguous) perspective of the individual the world certainly feels flat.

Huh? There's plenty of evidence for the supernatural -- it's just not "hard"
enough to suit you. Evidence includes: eye witness accounts, written records, etc. etc. Of course if we demand "scientific" evidence for the supernatural, we won't find it. That's because "science" is specifically designed to examine the natural world.

What's strange (to me) is to deny that there is any evidence. If we were in a court of law, on what grounds would we deny that Doubting Thomas's personal testimony of feeling the holes in Jesus' hands constitutes "evidence". I'll grant that we need not find the evidence persuasive -- but surely it constitutes evidence, and would not be excluded by any reasonable judge.

Following the first point, “soft” evidence does not mean all that much in science, and can be demonstrably and tenaciously erroneous. There was tons of soft evidence that led people to believe the earth was flat, and even when there was evidence that it wasn't it led people to misinterpret the data, as Mark tells us.
The point you make highly depends on the parameters by which you define evidence. In science the accounts of the bible certainly do not count as evidence – In a court of law they might, though the court analogy is not very strong. To start, forensic evidence always means more than anecdotal evidence, unless the court is biased. And for the sake of practicality, anecdotal evidence is merely used to fill in the gaps as best as possible left by the forensic evidence (once again, unless the court is biased).

As for NDE experiences I bid a similar point; NDEs can probably be explained by neuroscience, people need to learn to differentiate between the subjective and the objective. If I take LSD and see a unicorn, and if a great number of other people do it too, that does not necessarily mean unicorns exist in objective reality.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd actually read my posts before replying to them and telling me I was wrong, before paraphrasing what I said.

Your comment doesn't relate to what I said at all, and in fact is a mere re-phrasing of my position.

On the contrary, I said "you're not making this error." I was restating your position, because I think its clarity is important.

Ecurb

11-09-2010, 03:06 PM

This is nonsense.

If you had the slightest experience with eyewitness accounts, you'd realise that personal anecdotes are extremely unreliable.

Secondly, a huge amount of historical and eyewitness accounts make claims that would be verifiable by scientific enquiry…..

As soon as a claim is made that a supernatural force can interact with the physical world, it must, by nature, be measurable.

It’s not “nonsense”. Obviously, I DO have “the slightest experience with eyewitness accounts” – in fact, I saw a car drive by on the street just now. I tend to believe my own eyes, although I recognize that I might be deluded, and I tend to believe other people, unless there is some reason to suspect them of being wrong. However, I recognize that they may be wrong – just as scientists may be wrong (as history has proved over and over again). I further recognize that highly unusual eyewitness accounts are less credible than usual ones. There is no reason for you to doubt that I saw a car drive by, but if I said I saw a dragon fly by you might question either my veracity or my sanity.

What do we mean by “supernatural”. I don’t know. I assume we mean, “Something that occurs through some agency beyond the known forces of nature.” So the atomic bomb would be “supernatural” to people who know nothing of subatomic physics.

Following the first point, “soft” evidence does not mean all that much in science, and can be demonstrably and tenaciously erroneous. There was tons of soft evidence that led people to believe the earth was flat, and even when there was evidence that it wasn't it led people to misinterpret the data, as Mark tells us.
The point you make highly depends on the parameters by which you define evidence. In science the accounts of the bible certainly do not count as evidence – In a court of law they might, though the court analogy is not very strong. To start, forensic evidence always means more than anecdotal evidence, unless the court is biased. And for the sake of practicality, anecdotal evidence is merely used to fill in the gaps as best as possible left by the forensic evidence (once again, unless the court is biased).

Both forensic evidence and anecdotal evidence constitute forms of “evidence”, however. We must decide for ourselves which evidence we find persuasive. Forensic evidence can never tell the whole story – although our society’s bias in favor of science sometimes suggests that it does. For example, I’ve read newspaper stories claiming that death row inmates have been “exonerated” by DNA evidence. How is that possible? Suppose there was a rape and murder, and it turns out that the semen in the victim’s body does not match the DNA of the convicted murderer. Does that prove the convicted murderer is innocent of the crime? Of course it doesn’t (although it may cast "reasonable doubt" on the conviction). There are any number of explanations for the forensic evidence that are consistent with the guilt of the convicted murderer. Suppose, for example, you were a rape victim. You know who raped you – you knew him before the crime. If the DNA found in the semen did not match the person you I.D.ed as a rapist (which could happen if, for example, you had had sex with someone else recently), would you change your mind about who had raped you? Wouldn't believing the "forensic evidence" instead of (your own) eye witness accoung be consistent with your stated opinion?

All evidence is subject to interpretation -- scientific evidence and historical evidence (eye witness accounts) alike.

Ecurb

11-09-2010, 05:44 PM

One more note about scientific evidence. One seminal work (although now somewhat dated) on how science works is Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", published in 1934. Popper rejected standard empiricism. Science, by its very nature, moved beyond empiricism (indeed, empiricism is more akin to history or “eye witness accounts”, as we are using the words in this discussion). Science generalized on observation. However, this led to a problem – called the problem of induction. If you see 5 swans, and they are all white, you might theorize, “All swans are white.”

This is an example of moving from observations to scientific generalizations or laws. However, logicians recognize that the reasoning behind such generalizations is invalid. This is called “the problem of induction”. No matter how many white swans the scientist observes, the next swan he sees MIGHT be black.

Popper theorized that science advances through “falsification”. Although it is correct that inference from induction is invalid, the possibility of falsification lends credence to scientific generalizations. To the extent that many and reasonable attempts to “falsify” the theory (or generalization) fail to do so, the theory gains credibility.

Although modern philosophers of science recognize that this is only one of the many ways in which science moves forward, it remains an essential lynchpin of the scientific method.

Here’s the problem: If “rationalist atheists” refuse to accept any evidence for “miracles”, doesn’t that contradict this important scientific methodology? If the “scientific law” is considered more basic than the facts from which it is derived, how can ANY scientific law be falsified? So to say, “Jesus did not rise from the dead because it is impossible to rise from the dead,” is to deny the very foundations of scientific method.

I don’t want to overemphasize this: as I said earlier, it’s reasonable to be dubious about seemingly extraordinary claims – and I’m an atheist myself. However, we should be careful not to put the cart before the horse, or to make the scientific theories more fundamental than the observed facts.

hoope

11-10-2010, 01:00 PM

I have to say that I find your language and claims of being a nurse are somewhat at odds. I cannot think of case where a monitor would show that a patient will not survive. Unless some smart company has invented a new "life prediction machine" that I haven't heard about yet, no present medical equipment is prognostic without analysis.

A nurse knows this. A nurse also knows that doctors are, surprisingly frequently, wrong.

Sorry for using it that term .. i was to know that u r not aware of it.... Monitor usually would us show the low Blood pressure.. low Heart rate.. low oxygen level in the body .. and etc.. many other vital signs that soemtimes indicate to the docotr that such patient just can't make it.. And yes Doctors soemtimes r wrong.. but never always wrong.. and you can't say Doctors as in plural.. and i don't claim anything by saying am a nurse.!!!!

And about Kerry Packer.. i really don't know all the medical details about how he was.. but as far as i recall reading it .. that they said he had also kidney problems and got kidney transplant.. And he had many heart attacks.. so i guess he had many health problems which could have contributed to his death. !
Medical reasons.. !!!!

They are exactly the same - divine miracles.

If there were medical miracles of supernatural origin, that would be every bit as big as uncovering Noah's Ark, complete with a pair of fossilised unicorns.

No they are not.. those were only at that time by Prophets .. noq there is no porphets.. and hence if they happen it would only be in certain occasion..

I know that medical miracles are really different.. they r usually happeneing suddenly.. and sometimes by doctors interference or meds.. or even without any introductions..
Some people see NDE as not a miracle or anything .. and they just think that there is a reason behind Go bringing them back . Which makes more sense !

But i still stick to my point that big miracles that happened before were totally different and they don't exist anymore.

The Atheist

11-10-2010, 01:51 PM

Sorry for using it that term .. i was to know that u r not aware of it....

No, I'm aware of standard medical equipment; I was highlighting your error, which you now confirm that you mean simple monitors.

Monitor usually would us show the low Blood pressure.. low Heart rate.. low oxygen level in the body .. and etc.. many other vital signs that soemtimes indicate to the docotr that such patient just can't make it..

This is still wrong. Monitors do not explain what is wrong and alone, absolutely do not predict a prognosis.

This is why I seriously doubt your claim that you are a nurse.

A patient brought in with hypothermia will have terrible readings off the monitors, but a little hard work can often save a life.

I repeat, claims of people living who were expected to die are very, very rare.

And about Kerry Packer.. i really don't know all the medical details about how he was.. but as far as i recall reading it .. that they said he had also kidney problems and got kidney transplant.. And he had many heart attacks.. so i guess he had many health problems which could have contributed to his death. !
Medical reasons.. !!!!

I'm not talking about what killed him, but the occasion where he had a heart attack and "died" at a polo game, only to be resuscuitated.

But i still stick to my point that big miracles that happened before were totally different and they don't exist anymore.

Well, since there's no physical evidence to support any of these alleged miracles, I won't bother arguing about it, beyond noting that the christian god's miracles seem to have been exhausted when he was called upon to protect the Hebrews from the iron chariots.

togre

11-10-2010, 06:44 PM

I would like to comment on a number of points raised in this discussion by different people.

--It is easy to say there is no evidence when one rejects all recorded accounts of an event as flawed, inaccurate, delusional or made-up. If I rejected every eyewitness, every journal article, every instrument reading, I could accurately claim there to be no evidence of gravity. I would be wrong.

--Regarding the purpose of miracles--they were never intended to convince people that God exists. God intended his word, spoken through his servants the prophet, recorded by them in the Bible, to be what convinced people of who he was and what he promised. Think of Moses, the miracles were his ID badge that he wasn't some loon making grand claims to Pharaoh. In Luke chapter 16, Jesus tells a parable that captures the false notion that if there were just more miracles everyone would believe.

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’

Regarding present day miracles and especially "near death experiences" you'll probably hear alot of different things from different individuals. From my personal study, the Bible neither promises that there will be any miracles in these days, nor does it clear say there will not be. So what does a Christians do? Christians know that there are spiritual forces, both good (God) and evil (the devil). We know there is a physical world that operates under certain principles. We know humans can be mistaken or confused. So we factor these together. We examine whether the possible miracle is in accordance with what we know is true (the Bible). If it is, maybe its a miracle or maybe not. It is not in agreement with what is found in the Bible(a non-Christians has a near death experience that convinces them they'll be in heaven), we know its not a miracle from God. Maybe its a false work of the devil to delude people. Maybe its self delusion. Maybe its the brain trying make sense of random neurons firing. I personally am skeptical of many specific accounts of miraculous happenings, but recognize I often don't have all the information. But again notice, miracles are never why we believe.

togre

11-10-2010, 06:53 PM

Well, since there's no physical evidence to support any of these alleged miracles, I won't bother arguing about it, beyond noting that the christian god's miracles seem to have been exhausted when he was called upon to protect the Hebrews from the iron chariots.

Ok, one quick specific response. You make a number of assumptions. Why should there be "physical" evidence of these events? An arbitrary demand. Archeologists denied that King David existed. After all, the only place you hear about him is in the Bible and we all know how reliable that is, har, har. Until a period column was unearthed with an inscription mentioning David, King of Israel. There are other examples of blanket denials being disproved (there is even evidence that is consistent with the Bible's account of Jericho, but incredible bias on the part of believing and unbelieving scholars both has really muddy that part of archeology). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Secondly, God is not a vending machine. He doesn't perform miracles to fit our demands. Indeed, the Bible indicates that God often assisted and used Israel's enemies, aiding them to oppress his people when it was necessary to teach them of their errors. It would be extremely arrogant to demand miracle x,y or z to accomplish objective a, b, or c, unless God has made known that this is his plan.

The Atheist

11-10-2010, 08:12 PM

If I rejected every eyewitness, every journal article, every instrument reading, I could accurately claim there to be no evidence of gravity. I would be wrong.

This is possibly the worst analogy I've ever seen.

You can sit at your PC and drop a pen. It will fall to the ground - there is physical evidence of gravity everywhere, all the time.

That is the exact opposite of any god, so the analogy fails utterly.

But again notice, miracles are never why we believe.

In your case, that's fine, but there certainly are people who believe precisely because they feel a miracle has taken place in themselves or their family.

I doubt it's a major reason for belief, but you cannot say people like that do not exist.

Ok, one quick specific response. You make a number of assumptions. Why should there be "physical" evidence of these events?

I didn't say there should be, I made the point that if a miracle occurs which affects the physical world, then there must, by its very definition, leave physical evidence.

I'm quite comfortable that people believe in only metaphysical miracles, but once they start claiming physical miracles on earth, there has to be physical evidence.

An arbitrary demand. Archeologists denied that King David existed. After all, the only place you hear about him is in the Bible and we all know how reliable that is, har, har. Until a period column was unearthed with an inscription mentioning David, King of Israel. There are other examples of blanket denials being disproved (there is even evidence that is consistent with the Bible's account of Jericho, but incredible bias on the part of believing and unbelieving scholars both has really muddy that part of archeology).

There is no evidence at all that Jericho's downfall was consistent with the bible - in fact the very opposite is true; the fall of Jericho neither happened as described in the bible, nor when it was said to have happened.

Whether or not David existed is irrelevant. I'm quite happy to admit that some bloke called Yeshua from Nazareth probably existed in ~30 BC, but it doesn't make him god.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, I do know that. Is it at all relevant? I have no evidence that a teapot isn't orbiting Venus either.

Secondly, God is not a vending machine. He doesn't perform miracles to fit our demands. Indeed, the Bible indicates that God often assisted and used Israel's enemies, aiding them to oppress his people when it was necessary to teach them of their errors. It would be extremely arrogant to demand miracle x,y or z to accomplish objective a, b, or c, unless God has made known that this is his plan.

I have no problem with that theology at all. Trouble is, many of your fellow theists make extraordinary claims that a god is performing miracles every single day.

We heathen unbelievers find it difficult to separate those accounts from yours.

:)

YesNo

11-11-2010, 12:45 AM

Regarding present day miracles and especially "near death experiences" you'll probably hear alot of different things from different individuals. From my personal study, the Bible neither promises that there will be any miracles in these days, nor does it clear say there will not be. So what does a Christians do? Christians know that there are spiritual forces, both good (God) and evil (the devil). We know there is a physical world that operates under certain principles. We know humans can be mistaken or confused. So we factor these together. We examine whether the possible miracle is in accordance with what we know is true (the Bible). If it is, maybe its a miracle or maybe not. It is not in agreement with what is found in the Bible(a non-Christians has a near death experience that convinces them they'll be in heaven), we know its not a miracle from God. Maybe its a false work of the devil to delude people. Maybe its self delusion. Maybe its the brain trying make sense of random neurons firing.

This is the kind of answer that I expect from a Christian: an NDE is real (in this case, not the act of some devil), only if it justifies the believer's theology.

An atheist often gives a similar kind of answer and denies that the evidence exists, because the NDE violates the atheist's theology. Usually you hear non-believers trying to explain away the NDE by saying that there must be something wrong with the dead person's brain, or as you suggest they are caused by "random neurons firing." The only problem with these explanations is that there aren't any neurons firing at all. The person is dead.

So we can be thankful that Christians and atheists have at least some common ground. They both deny NDEs.

The Atheist

11-11-2010, 05:33 AM

An atheist often gives a similar kind of answer and denies that the evidence exists, because the NDE violates the atheist's theology.

Atheists don't even have doctrine, let alone theology.

Usually you hear non-believers trying to explain away the NDE by saying that there must be something wrong with the dead person's brain, or as you suggest they are caused by "random neurons firing." The only problem with these explanations is that there aren't any neurons firing at all. The person is dead.

No, this is more nonsense. Patients who report NDEs are almost always those whose hearts have stopped beating rather than in whom brain signals had ceased.

While it's great TV to talk about people being "brain dead", it is extremely rare in reality that a critical patient would be hooked up to a brain scanner. In fact, I find it hard to think of any instances where an ICU or critical care patient would be having his/her brain monitored. Brain scans are diagnostic, not there to signify life or death.

So we can be thankful that Christians and atheists have at least some common ground. They both deny NDEs.

I don't know of any atheists who deny NDEs. They all feel there's a physical and rational explanation, but nobody seriously doubts they happen.

I can't speak for christians.

hoope

11-11-2010, 12:59 PM

No, I'm aware of standard medical equipment; I was highlighting your error, which you now confirm that you mean simple monitors.

This is still wrong. Monitors do not explain what is wrong and alone, absolutely do not predict a prognosis.

This is why I seriously doubt your claim that you are a nurse.

A patient brought in with hypothermia will have terrible readings off the monitors, but a little hard work can often save a life.

I hell don't care if u doubt me being a nurse... And its not my problem if u don't know what a monitors show also .
A part from what you said .. A monitor do show when a heart stops .. or a case of brain death when there is no electrical signal... Its not just hypothermia !!!

I repeat, claims of people living who were expected to die are very, very rare.

Even if its rare .. it's there . Tough i don't think its that rare but quite few.

Following is a story of a lady who was having ALS Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, and if you go through it you would see people die from it not less than 5 years after diagnosis of the disease. This lady below survived it .. and though i believe in science and i know the Stem cells has helped many patients in such conditions..
Quoted from here: http://blisstree.com/feel/are-there-true-miracles-in-medicine/

We hear and read of them: miracle cures ranging from tumors that have disappeared to the sickest of babies pulling through without any after effects of their illness or complications. Many of these miracles are due to the power of prayer, say the devout. Can this really happen?

A woman with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) says that it can and has happened to her. Fifty-year-old Italian Antonia Raco was diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease and has been wheelchair bound for the past four years. Earlier this month, she visited the a shrine in Lourdes, France, a popular site for Roman Catholic pilgrims. Many who are ill or disabled visit the site to pray for miracles.

Records over the past many decades offer several examples of miracles performed at Lourdes.

According to this news article, Woman with ALS reports healing at Lourdes,

She visited the Roman Catholic Shrine of St. Bernadette in France Aug. 5 and said she was in a healing bath when she felt a pain in her legs and a voice encouraging her.
”Ever since I came back I have been walking, doing everything normally,” Antonia Raco, 50, told ANSA news service.

What do you think? Is this a miracle, or could it be something else

so Why not ! if that lady thinks its a miracle .. then who knows it might have been so ?
The difinition of miracle itself is different from what everyone might have in mind .

Well, since there's no physical evidence to support any of these alleged miracles, I won't bother arguing about it, beyond noting that the christian god's miracles seem to have been exhausted when he was called upon to protect the Hebrews from the iron chariots.

The miracles that God has blessed over his prophets are there in Divine books.. . However i know that all that is still stated in the Holy Quran , for its the one i read .
Now the miracles before were done by the prophets within a word from God. It was usually taken from something of the people ; thing they were good at and so a proof to make them believe.
As for example the people that Jesus Peace be Upon him was sent to they were good in medicine ; hence his miracles were use to heal the blind and sick and deaf .
And those of Moses were good in Magic and there were many wizards then .. so his miracles included magical aspects the stick that turned to snake ; which when they saw they realized that wasn't a magic work for they used magic to blind people's eyes and show them stuff that wasn't .. But Moses magic was much bigger it was not a magic in fact it was a miracle from God.

And Abraham Peace be upon him , after destroying all the idols , his people wasnted to burn him alive .. after setting the fires . By Only God's wish and by God's order it was cold on his body and no harmful it was .

021.068 They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, If ye do (anything at all)!"

021.069 We said, "O Fire! be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham!"
The Holy Quran

And the Holy Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him miracles were many as the others. . Just like how others prophets like Solomon and Jacob Peace be upon them .

Each prophet had many miracles and i am not going to discuss it and if we try to count it we're gonna take many posts.

I am fully aware that you are an Atheist and this in fact doesn't mean anything to you .
Even though many people are going to give mockery replies , yet i don't care . For i didn't post only for them .

Miracles were .. PAST TENSE... and now there are other forms of such great miracles maybe not as they were before .. or maybe they are not there but i think that there are such incidents that are not explained and i don't like going through it in deep. Could be in the help of medicine or it might not be .. Could be anything but not miracle ?
But there is something somehow.. and i know that it can't measured for such thing never has a deivce to measure it .

I guess the definition of miracle is an act pf supreme power that makes a change ... I guess ..

Regards,
Hoope

The Atheist

11-11-2010, 01:50 PM

I hell don't care if u doubt me being a nurse... And its not my problem if u don't know what a monitors show also .
A part from what you said .. A monitor do show when a heart stops .. or a case of brain death when there is no electrical signal... Its not just hypothermia !!!

And again, you're misusing medicine and medical equipment - a flat line on a heart monitor shows nothing about the brain. The heart and brain are not connected. A stopped heart does not signify brain death, just as a brain dead patient may be kept "alive" by machines which keep the heart beating and lungs aerated.

Following is a story of a lady who was having ALS Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ...

Without supporting evidence, I wouldn't care to comment on what one blogster says.

I will merely note the impossibility of a wheelchair-bound person walking. Unless the miracle cure also causes instantaneous re-growth of muscle tissue, it would take moths to regain one's feet.

I love that kind of claim, since a genuine claim would be so obvious - the mew muscle mass would be both visible and measurable, but oddly, there are never any measurements given.

Again, a nurse would know that.

And those of Moses were good in Magic and there were many wizards then .. so his miracles included magical aspects the stick that turned to snake ; which when they saw they realized that wasn't a magic work for they used magic to blind people's eyes and show them stuff that wasn't .. But Moses magic was much bigger it was not a magic in fact it was a miracle from God.

So, the god used to be able to do party tricks, but gave up?

I still find it amusing how this god chappie used to be happy to do so many physical miracles to persuade unbelievers all those thousands of years ago, but now that we can use a bit of science, he stays keeps his rabbit in the hat.

The silly thing is, I agree wholeheartedly with Uncle Tommy Aquinas - any actual supernatural happening must inevitably lead to the Abrahamic god. All it would take for me to become a believer is one single miracle, but the god is happy to sit on hands and expect me to believe some thousands of years old text?

As I say to my kids, "Don't tell me, show me!"

I guess the definition of miracle is an act pf supreme power that makes a change ... I guess ..

I'm happy with that definition of miracle. Still awaiting reliable evidence.

Scheherazade

11-11-2010, 02:22 PM

R e m i n d e r

Please show respect towards the beliefs of others.

We are here to discuss the issues, not each other.

hoope

11-11-2010, 02:37 PM

And again, you're misusing medicine and medical equipment - a flat line on a heart monitor shows nothing about the brain. The heart and brain are not connected. A stopped heart does not signify brain death, just as a brain dead patient may be kept "alive" by machines which keep the heart beating and lungs aerated.

I hell didn't say that a cardiac monitor is connected to that of the brain.. check my comment above... There are monitors that shows heart activities and others for brain..
I believe in medicine . I know what achievements medicine and science done.. So no need to remind me to that.

So, the god used to be able to do party tricks, but gave up?

I still find it amusing how this god chappie used to be happy to do so many physical miracles to persuade unbelievers all those thousands of years ago, but now that we can use a bit of science, he stays keeps his rabbit in the hat.

NOO COMMENT !!!

As I say to my kids, "Don't tell me, show me!"

What do you want me to show you .... ?
That happens million years back . And the point is that this -we call it faith .. we believe in things that we didn't see . And i don't want you believe in it .

I'm happy with that definition of miracle. Still awaiting reliable evidence.
What evidence you want.. since u can't proof the opposite that doesn't mean that it's wrong.
And we may not see it but we see its effect.

And here i end my comments for not gonna reach to anything .

Jassy Melson

11-12-2010, 03:39 PM

I will simply say that miracles cannot be explained or denied, but they do happen.

MarkBastable

11-12-2010, 03:47 PM

I will simply say that miracles cannot be explained or denied, but they do happen.

Well, if that's an allowable contribution to the discussion....

I will simply say that miracles don't happen.

Ecurb

11-12-2010, 03:55 PM

Well, if that's an allowable contribution to the discussion....

I will simply say that miracles don't happen.

"Miracles" neither happen nor fail to happen. Things happen, and sometimes they are described as "miracles". Miracles are not what happens -- they are an interpretation of what happens.

MarkBastable

11-12-2010, 03:59 PM

"Miracles" neither happen nor fail to happen. Things happen, and sometimes they are described as "miracles". Miracles are not what happens -- they are an interpretation of what happens.

I should have used the font Irony Sans Smilie there, shouldn't I?

YesNo

11-12-2010, 06:47 PM

Atheists don't even have doctrine, let alone theology.

I suspect we all have these things.

The atheist's theology would try to disprove the existence of something others claim to be "God".

MarkBastable

11-12-2010, 09:18 PM

I suspect we all have these things.

The atheist's theology would try to disprove the existence of something others claim to be "God".

By definition of the words, there can't be an atheistic theology, no matter what you suspect.

the·ol·o·gy /θiˈɒlədʒi/
[thee-ol-uh-jee]

–noun, plural -gies.
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of god and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

Origin:
1325–75; ME theologie < OF < LL theologia < Gk theología.

BienvenuJDC

11-12-2010, 11:29 PM

By definition of the words, there can't be an atheistic theology, no matter what you suspect.

the·ol·o·gy /θiˈɒlədʒi/
[thee-ol-uh-jee]

–noun, plural -gies.
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of god and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

Origin:
1325–75; ME theologie < OF < LL theologia < Gk theología.

okay then....the atheist's atheology....

MarkBastable

11-13-2010, 01:47 AM

okay then....the atheist's atheology....

Wonderful. They've started making up words. That would be 'atheism' then.

Nightshade

11-14-2010, 06:19 PM

I suspect that Christians could very easily have problems with near-death experiences.

Why?

Because people who are not Christians, not even religious, have positive near-death experiences. If Jesus is the only way, how is that possible? It also looks like no one needs to wait for a final judgment to occur. So how does that sync up with the book of Revelation?

I also think Buddhists would have problems with NDEs considering their "non-Atman" approach to the "soul", but I am not as familiar with that religion.
.

Not a Christian ( know nothing about Buddhisim so not going to comment) but I don' see the issue, a NDE is God (or Jesus if you like) giving people a second chance, to believe in him, or to get more good points or even giving them more rope to hang themselves with, depends on your version of religion I guess.

I repeat, claims of people living who were expected to die are very, very rare.
.

Not THAT rare Atheist, I am closley releated to 2 and know about half a dozen others...

I don't really hold with NDE as miracles, no more than life itself, science , math the universe being a miracle.

Then again I have serious issues with Miracles especially the so and so can cure people type miracles . I tend to have great diffculty in refraining from snorting or rolling my eyes and really offending people.

Do religious miracles become less spectacular and more "believable" as we get closer to the present time?

From the days of parting the sea and building arks to carry many animals and survive a terrible storm, we get to catching large number of fish and healing people.

If you agree that religious miracles are getting smaller in scale in time, why do you think this might be? Is it because we do not need great miracles anymore? Or difficulty of proving? Or we are able to explain things better without resorting to supernatural?

What are your thoughts on religious miracles?

But to return to OP I think that we need a defintion of what is a miracle. I think ( not sure but I think) that for the most part as far as my religion is concerend big miricales are done, except for a few predicted ones which frankly should they happen I really do NOT want to be around for.
Personally I think things happend everyday, little things that are still amazong, call it concidence , probablity, whatever else you want to call it , if you look around you you can come to your own conclusions as to wheatehr God and thus 'miracles' exist or not with out big spectacular things. Either way we shouldn't take life and the world for granted.

Alexander III

11-14-2010, 07:22 PM

That there is no reason to believe that one has ever occurred. It's a question of probability. What's more likely: that the laws of nature were violated, or that someone got the story wrong or just made it up? Considering what we know about human psychology, I'd say the latter is far more probable.

By saying that you imply that you, that mankind KNOWS the laws of nature. A naive statement at best. To say that we have minds capable of grasping at the fringes of the laws of nature, is akin to saying we understand eternity or infinity. The human mind is to feeble, to mortal, to ever comprehend anything but a microscopic fathom on the fringes of the laws of nature.

Oh and as another note, while may scientists say they are atheists or agnostic, a portion of those who say that are truly deists, they just don't say that they are deists as there is not set of rules or thought on deism, it very individual, and thus a great difficulty to explain, so its just easier to say they are agnostic.

The Atheist

11-14-2010, 07:27 PM

Not THAT rare Atheist, I am closley releated to 2 and know about half a dozen others...

Sorry, I should have made that point clearer as it specifically related to a discussion about ICU/CC patients.

I don't mean the typical "You have six months/a year to live" scenarios, but cases where multiple trauma has a patient expected to die in the very near future - hours or a day.

Nightshade

11-14-2010, 07:40 PM

Actually I was talking about ICU patients too :D But lets just say my family aside ( I will admit we are a bizzare bunch medical wise adn only one of those 2 was actually in ICU ) I happen to be postioned to hear and know about the freakiest ICU/CC cases... and meant quite a few of them. BUt then like I said I don't think those count as religious mircales as such, Its just proof we are not infallible and don't know everything!

The Atheist

11-14-2010, 07:44 PM

By saying that you imply that you, that mankind KNOWS the laws of nature. A naive statement at best. To say that we have minds capable of grasping at the fringes of the laws of nature, is akin to saying we understand eternity or infinity.

Can you expand on this, because I think I have an excellent grasp on "the laws of nature" such as we understand them to date. So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways.

You don't need to understand infinity and eternity since they are merely human constructions and do not exist in reality.

The human mind is to feeble, to mortal, to ever comprehend anything but a microscopic fathom on the fringes of the laws of nature.

That's a frequently-stated opinion, but as noted, unless there is a secret universe we haven't discovered yet, there just aren't enough gaps in human knowledge to make it stick.

Oh and as another note, while may scientists say they are atheists or agnostic, a portion of those who say that are truly deists, they just don't say that they are deists as there is not set of rules or thought on deism, it very individual, and thus a great difficulty to explain, so its just easier to say they are agnostic.

I don't agree with this either - deism has been popular with scientists for centuries and there are still plenty around who hold publicly to the belief. I can't imagine the subject is worth covering up; most deists are just as proud of their beliefs as any worshipper, and against some religious beliefs, are quite sane and reasonable. If some scientists can believe that the earth is 6014 years old, I don't see others who happen to be deists finding it too hard to explain their beliefs.

Jassy Melson

11-14-2010, 11:28 PM

Why are so many posters so snotty in their replies?

Ecurb

11-15-2010, 05:17 PM

Can you expand on this, because I think I have an excellent grasp on "the laws of nature" such as we understand them to date. So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways.
.

You are begging the question about miracles, Athiest. Of course everyone agrees that IF the universe behaves in totally predictable ways, there are no miracles. Miracles are CALLED "miracles" precisely because they are unpredictable, and contravene the apparent "Laws of Nature". Look back at post 25, where I explain the "problem of induction".

I'll put it another way: If Jesus rose from the dead, he was behaving in an unpredictable way. However, it is fallacious reasoning to suggest that He cannot have risen from the dead because normally thing are predictable, and therefore nothing that is unpredictable can ever happen. Either Jesus rose from the dead (in which case unpredictable things CAN happen), or He didn't rise from the dead (in which case unpredictable things may or may not be able to happen).

YesNo

11-15-2010, 07:21 PM

Either way we shouldn't take life and the world for granted.

I agree.

Haunted

11-15-2010, 07:43 PM

Why are so many posters so snotty in their replies?

Asking for non-snotty posters here is like asking for a miracle.

The Atheist

11-15-2010, 09:52 PM

You are begging the question about miracles, Athiest.

I'm not sure why you've typed that post, because it has nothing to do with what I said, which was specifically aimed at Alexander's claim:

To say that we have minds capable of grasping at the fringes of the laws of nature, is akin to saying we understand eternity or infinity.

It is not begging the question in any way. Alexander has made a strange claim and I would like clarification of it as it appears to challenge what human knowledge actually is.

YesNo

11-16-2010, 09:10 AM

Asking for non-snotty posters here is like asking for a miracle.

:smilielol5:

However, I haven't seen any "snotty" posts. But I probably don't know what "snotty" means. Perhaps whatever annoys the reader?

Ecurb

11-16-2010, 12:34 PM

It is not begging the question in any way. Alexander has made a strange claim and I would like clarification of it as it appears to challenge what human knowledge actually is.

Actually, you said, "So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways." If humans have "discovered" miracles (as some claim), this is manifestly false.

We puny humans certainly can't predict many of the ways in which "the universe, matter and energy" behave. If we could, we could make a fortune at Las Vegas. So your statement begs the question of miracles (if there ARE miracles, the universe does NOT behave in predictable ways). In addition, it is a leap of faith on your part to make such an assertion. We can't even predict whether the dice will come up seven or eleven, let alone many more complicated things about the universe. You seem to be saying, "Because we can scientifically predict some things about the universe, given better scientific knowledge we could predict everything." This may be true -- but it is far from proven.

I don't mean to pick nits with you, Atheist. Instead, I'm suggesting that such a "scientific worldview" (asserting that with superior data and better theoretical constructs we COULD predict the behavior of the universe) is itself a mighty leap of faith.

The Atheist

11-16-2010, 03:59 PM

Actually, you said, "So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways." If humans have "discovered" miracles (as some claim), this is manifestly false.

No, I think you're barking up the wrong tree entirely.

Alexander believes the universe is neither understandable nor predictable. That is wrong.

You will note that I started my sentence with "so far". That means, every discovery up until now.

If a miracle is ever proven, then I will change the statement, but in the meantime, with all evidence of miracles being disputed at the very least, I don't believe the statement is deficient in any way.

Claims of miracles to date have not had sufficient evidence to support them to be given any credence whatsoever. I file them along with all the other personal anecdotes - those about Loch Ness Monster and sasquatch sightings, alien abductions and the myriad of other deluded fantasies people try to claim as "evidence".

We puny humans certainly can't predict many of the ways in which "the universe, matter and energy" behave. If we could, we could make a fortune at Las Vegas.

This, however, is just rubbish.

Predicting the outcome of a dice throw is very, very simple - it will be a number between 1 and 6, inclusive. Blaming science for being unable to predict a random number generator bears no relationship to knowledge of the universe whatsoever.

So your statement begs the question of miracles (if there ARE miracles, the universe does NOT behave in predictable ways). In addition, it is a leap of faith on your part to make such an assertion. We can't even predict whether the dice will come up seven or eleven, let alone many more complicated things about the universe. You seem to be saying, "Because we can scientifically predict some things about the universe, given better scientific knowledge we could predict everything." This may be true -- but it is far from proven.

I don't mean to pick nits with you, Atheist. Instead, I'm suggesting that such a "scientific worldview" (asserting that with superior data and better theoretical constructs we COULD predict the behavior of the universe) is itself a mighty leap of faith.

Feel free to think that way, but it just shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process, because no faith is involved. I don't have any faith that science will ultimately answer all questions, but logic tells me that it's extremely likely, given the record of science vs myth for the past few thousand years.

Once you get past solipsism, reality begins to exist, and is measurable. Science doesn't prove reality, it just shows how it works.

If a genuine miracle happens, it will be outside of science - except for perhaps measuring the effect upon the terrestrial subject in question - and therefore will not change "natural laws". That's why the term "supernatural" exists.

As I've already stated in this or another thread - a supernatural miracle can be taken as proof of god. This is about the only thing I agree with Tommy Aquinas on.

While I keep waiting for the real thing I enjoy reports of miracles; from Indian statues in farm ponds (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4341207/Pilgrims-flock-to-shrine-in-Wainui-backyard) to visions at Medugorje (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me%C4%91ugorje) there are always plenty of people prepared to give miracles a free pass.

Ecurb

11-16-2010, 06:36 PM

This, however, is just rubbish.

Predicting the outcome of a dice throw is very, very simple - it will be a number between 1 and 6, inclusive. Blaming science for being unable to predict a random number generator bears no relationship to knowledge of the universe whatsoever.
.

You are merely repeating your prejudices. Of course I and most other modern people share these same prejudices, so its easy to avoid seeing them. Nonetheless, if "matter and energy behave in totally predictable ways" (as you claimed) we should be able to predict the results of a dice throw. I don't see why you say we can't. It's all a matter of the electrons firing off in the brain of the craps thrower; the muscles spasming in his hand and arm; the friction of the dice with the air and the cloth on the craps table.

I'm science oriented myself -- I'm completely willing to say that with more complete data, and better understanding of the physics of the human brain and muscles, we could predict which number would come up on the die every time. My point is that we're a long way off from being able to do so. So my claim that we COULD (given better science and data) is a mere leap of faith.

So is your suggestion that miracles can't happen because nature operates according to strict "laws", which never alter. If you are right -- then I'm right about potentially predicting the roll of the die. But both claims involve a leap of faith.

MarkBastable

11-16-2010, 07:11 PM

Ecurb

11-16-2010, 07:16 PM

Sure. I play regularly. Playing according to the "odds" is the best tactic given our imperfect knowledge. But given better scientific knolwedge, the chances of hitting a third ace on the river is either 0% or 100%. We only say it's 2/46 because we don't know what card is second from the top of the deck. The odds are a useful fiction.

The Atheist

11-17-2010, 04:37 AM

Can I interest you in a game of poker?

I'll give you poker as long as I get craps!

The odds are a useful fiction.

Look, I really don't want to give you a hard time here, but your understanding of maths is a level below my 11 year old daughter, and she is decidely average at maths. Regardless of claims about science, faith and all the other bits, only in Orwell does 2+2=5.

There is clearly no point contuining.

Ecurb

11-17-2010, 12:41 PM

Look, I really don't want to give you a hard time here, but your understanding of maths is a level below my 11 year old daughter, and she is decidely average at maths. Regardless of claims about science, faith and all the other bits, only in Orwell does 2+2=5.

There is clearly no point contuining.

You are obviously not very bright, so I agree. Atheistic arguments like yours serve to make atheists look stupid.

For anyone else reading this thread, the odds are a useful fiction in poker because (given an honest dealer) once the cards are shuffled either an ace is second from the top in the deck or it is not ("second from the top" because the top card is "burned" in Texas Hold 'em). The 2/46 odds (there are 46 unseen cards in the deck, and two of them are aces) are irrelevant to the person with perfect knowledge of the facts. They are relevant to the card player, who is ignorant of the facts.

billl

11-17-2010, 02:48 PM

I understood, Ecurb.

Ecurb

11-17-2010, 03:01 PM

I understood, Ecurb.

Thanks. I didn't think it was that difficult.

Scheherazade

11-17-2010, 05:35 PM

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic posts or posts containing inflammatory/personal comments will be removed without further notice.

The Comedian

11-17-2010, 09:48 PM

So a favorite nature writer of mine --Bernd Heinrich (professor emeritus [of biology] at the University of Vermont) -- still holds out for miracles, though his source is nature and not religious dogma.

He's observed that certain moth larvae will will metamorphose into odd, though genetic variant caterpillars, . . . . say a larvae that normally changes into a spotted green caterpillar, changes instead into a dark brown one. . . based on genetic or environmental conditions. Of this as yet unexplained phenomenon. . . . that in insects certain genes are turned "on" or "off" based on unexplained genetic or environmental factors, he writes:

We humans cannot change into any radically different body color, body shape, or behavior. We have evolved to maintain a certain homeostasis, or staus quo that has proved to be adaptive in the past. However, the genes of a butterfly are the same as those in a caterpillar. The difference is which are turned on or off, and when. . . .

Once an end result is achieved, it is hard for us to imagine an alternative that has proceeded along a different developmental trajectory without crediting it to magic or "talent." When we see in others something that we find incomprehensible for ourselves, it is easy to pass this off as "genetic." Naturally, it is exactly that; but this description still omits the essence of development, the miracle on the miracle. The possibility of individual caterpillars to generate amazingly different forms makes me appreciate what is possible in the debate over nature versus nurture.

While I know that Heinrich is not using the term "miracle" in the religious or dogmatic sense, he is using it to express the idea that there are many things in the world that we do not understand, and that it may be an overstep of our self-confidence to say that everything is explainable.

I'm sure that that there are many here who will eagerly belittle and demean the simple idea that a miracle is not necessarily supernatural, but that miracles are those things beyond our current ability to understand. To them, I can only shrug my shoulders.

The Atheist

11-17-2010, 11:17 PM

While I know that Heinrich is not using the term "miracle" in the religious or dogmatic sense, he is using it to express the idea that there are many things in the world that we do not understand, and that it may be an overstep of our self-confidence to say that everything is explainable.

I'm sure that that there are many here who will eagerly belittle and demean the simple idea that a miracle is not necessarily supernatural, but that miracles are those things beyond our current ability to understand. To them, I can only shrug my shoulders.

I'm quite happy with that usage.

Life is a miracle - so unbelievably complex that it's taken us millions of years to begin to understand it, and even now, we have no real idea of how it started.

It saddens me that that kind of miracle, which we're actually a part of, isn't enough for some people.

Ecurb

11-18-2010, 12:37 PM

Since this is a literature board, I suppose it is appropriate to post:

Miracles
by Walt Whitman

Why, who makes much of a miracle?
As to me I know of nothing else but miracles,
Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan,
Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,
Or wade with naked feet along the beach just in the edge of the water,
Or stand under trees in the woods,
Or talk by day with any one I love, or sleep in the bed at night
with any one I love,
Or sit at table at dinner with the rest,
Or look at strangers opposite me riding in the car,
Or watch honey-bees busy around the hive of a summer forenoon,
Or animals feeding in the fields,
Or birds, or the wonderfulness of insects in the air,
Or the wonderfulness of the sundown, or of stars shining so quiet
and bright,
Or the exquisite delicate thin curve of the new moon in spring;
These with the rest, one and all, are to me miracles,
The whole referring, yet each distinct and in its place.
To me every hour of the light and dark is a miracle,
Every cubic inch of space is a miracle,
Every square yard of the surface of the earth is spread with the same,
Every foot of the interior swarms with the same.
To me the sea is a continual miracle,
The fishes that swim--the rocks--the motion of the waves--the
ships with men in them,
What stranger miracles are there?

By the way, when Jesus (supposedly) turned water into wine for the wedding at Canae, he was merely performing the same miracle that occurs every time that the rain falls, and grapes grow and ripen and are picked and fermented. The miracles of the Father are echoed in those of the Son (the Bible suggests).

MarkBastable

11-18-2010, 01:02 PM

By the way, when Jesus (supposedly) turned water into wine for the wedding at Canae, he was merely performing the same miracle that occurs every time that the rain falls, and grapes grow and ripen and are picked and fermented. The miracles of the Father are echoed in those of the Son (the Bible suggests).

So, within the terms of the word as you mean it, everything in nature is a miracle. This is perhaps a bit difficult for those of us - including the World English Dictionary - who tend to use the word to mean pretty much the opposite of that - to wit, any occurence that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature.

World English Dictionary
miracle (ˈmɪrək ə l)

— n
1. an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause

If we're going to go with your definition of the word, we're going to need another word to cover stuff like the parting of the Red Sea and the raising of Lazarus. Unless, I suppose, you'd argue that those events - historically verifiable or not - are no more remarkable than photosynthesis and the fermentation of sugar.

Just to make the comparison, could you list a few things that aren't miraculous?

Ecurb

11-18-2010, 01:25 PM

I think you are confusing me with Walt Whitman. Thanks.

The Atheist

11-18-2010, 01:28 PM

If we're going to go with your definition of the word, we're going to need another word to cover stuff like the parting of the Red Sea and the raising of Lazarus. Unless, I suppose, you'd argue that those events - historically verifiable or not - are no more remarkable than photosynthesis and the fermentation of sugar.

No, this is misleading at the very least.

"Miracle" has always required qualification. You only need to watch sport to realise that, and you've been just a teensy bit naughty with the dictionary definition, because they all go on to record meaning 2 of the word. Thus:

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle):

an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

Or, you could just take Oxford (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/miracle?view=uk)'s three definitions:

noun
an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency:
the miracle of rising from the grave

a remarkable event or development that brings very welcome consequences:
it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed

an exceptional product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something

Isn't that why the thread is entitled "Religious Miracles"?

The crash and saving of every life aboard the plane that hit the Hudson River (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-15/us/new.york.plane.crash_1_air-traffic-controllers-bird-strike-pilot?_s=PM:US) is an example of something truly miraculous, but purely human.

MarkBastable

11-18-2010, 01:33 PM

The crash and saving of every life aboard the plane that hit the Hudson River (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-15/us/new.york.plane.crash_1_air-traffic-controllers-bird-strike-pilot?_s=PM:US) is an example of something truly miraculous, but purely human.

I'd say that was a figurative use, like That woman is an angel, or Mark Bastable is a pedantic a**hole.

However, the original point stands: if everything in nature is a miracle, as Walt Whitman and ecurb suggest, we need to make it clear somehow that we intended to talk about the stuff that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature. As you say, the thread name implies as much, but ecurb has just cited Cana and the Loire Valley, and I'd say a distinction needs to be made between the two methods of wine production.

Ecurb

11-18-2010, 03:19 PM

Many religious people refer to “the miracle of creation”. Like Whitman, they see God’s creative hand in the usual and everyday, just as in the parting of the Red Sea. My analysis of the miracle at Canae was literary (this is a literary board, after all). The literary value of Jesus turning water into wine is in part that it makes the reader reflect on the normal method by which water turns into wine, which is “miraculous” in Whitman’s sense of the word, and which, to religious people 2000 years ago was a gift from God, like Jesus' gift to the wedding party.

I'll grant that until The Comedian's post, we were not using the word thus.

yck016

12-08-2013, 10:22 PM

i think we shld not take religion to seriously. its jus a set ideology to guide our actions in life.
its precisely when we overzealously protect or proselytising the belief that created much friction
in the world. there is nothing that can prove the existence of those spiritual entiies or realm,
yet we are fighting tooth and nails over it. the best approach is live and lets live.

MorpheusSandman

12-15-2013, 02:45 PM

Look, I really don't want to give you a hard time here, but your understanding of maths is a level below my 11 year old daughter...I realize this is an old thread/discussion, but I felt compelled to state that Ecurb is actually correct. Probabilities reflect our level of knowledge and ignorance about reality, not reality itself. However, I think he is mistaken in what he's implying here: "We puny humans certainly can't predict many of the ways in which "the universe, matter and energy" behave. If we could, we could make a fortune at Las Vegas." If "us puny humans" had internal and accurate General Relativity calculators we could, indeed, make a fortune in Vegas. It's the limitations of our brains-as-processors that create the probabilities in Vegas and that Casinos capitalize on.

However, The Atheist is equally correct in saying that science's best models can, indeed, predict everything that happens in Vegas with 100% accuracy and predict much more complicated things with just as much accuracy... the problem is creating a processor that can process those models within the time-span of a dice roll. The problem with those scientific models is that they're so complicated that they take time to compute, and we don't exactly have time to jot down all of the necessary information about a dice roll (force of the throw, the angle at which the dice exited the hand and hit the table, the material of the table, etc.) and come up with a predictive answer that's better than 1/6. But that's a statement about OUR limitations, not those of science. Quantum mechanics predictions are far more complicated than those of dice rolls, and they work swimmingly.

Ecurb

12-16-2013, 08:16 PM

I don't think that scientific models (given the current state of science) can "predict everything that happens in Vegas with 100% accuracy." I'll grant that once the dice have been tossed, perfect knowledge of the angle, force, and orientation of the dice would probably allow us to predict how they will land. Where scientists have been less successful is in understanding the human mind. When will the crap shooter throw the dice? How hard will he throw them? At what angle will he throw them? Once the dice are in the air, no bets are allowed (I think, I don't play craps).

I don't doubt that some day our understanding of the mind will improve, and we may be able to predict these things more accurately. But will we be able to predict them ten years before the crap shooter even goes to Vegas? Two years? A day?

It is reasonable to say, "If our science were improved, and we understood how neurons firing in the brain work more completely, we could predict all human choices scientifically." But my original point was that although this is a reasonable position, it is also a leap of faith. Since science cannot help us predict these things today, we cannot be certain that we will be able predict them in the future.

MorpheusSandman

12-16-2013, 09:29 PM

I think I see the problem here... The Atheist was talking about the abilities of our models and what they tell us about reality being predictable; while you're talking about our failures in engineering those models to help us do things like predict the outcome of Vegas games. These are two very different things. I have no doubt that given the complete data that General Relativity could deterministically predict the outcome of a dice roll, but just because we can't figure out how to build a machine that can calculate all of the necessary data in the time-frame of a roll is not a knock against our models or what they have to say about reality being deterministic and predictable. It's the latter that The Atheist seemed to be addressing in his response to Alexander, who was exaggerating in minimizing how much we can "know" about reality.

I think calling odds a "useful illusion" has false ring to it, though I understand what you mean. I prefer Yudkowsky's "probability is in the mind, not in reality," which more distinctly explains that odds are the result of our combined ignorance and knowledge of a situational outcome. That level of knowledge and ignorance isn't really an illusion as much as it is as a factual statement about our mind. The only "illusion" would be to think that the probabilities are an inherent part of reality.

While we're "picking nits," as you said, I want to address this point on the issue of falsifiability:
If “rationalist atheists” refuse to accept any evidence for “miracles”, doesn’t that contradict this important scientific methodology? If the “scientific law” is considered more basic than the facts from which it is derived, how can ANY scientific law be falsified? So to say, “Jesus did not rise from the dead because it is impossible to rise from the dead,” is to deny the very foundations of scientific method.This reminds me of Yudkowsky's The Parable of Hemlock. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/nf/) A generalized induction would be falsified if we ever observed the opposite, so "dead people don't rise again" is falsifiable. However, saying "Jesus did not rise from the dead because it is impossible to rise from the dead" is, essentially, saying that the consistency of our modern observations are not/should not be considered falsified by the mere existence of a falsifying account, especially since we know it is not only possible but prevalent in texts to give "accounts" of things that didn't actually happen. Given the absolute consistency of our observations, the burden of proof would be on those claiming it did happen, and I honestly don't think there IS any evidence good enough to support an account of such an event over our own observations.

Ecurb

12-17-2013, 03:12 PM

While we're "picking nits," as you said, I want to address this point on the issue of falsifiability: This reminds me of Yudkowsky's The Parable of Hemlock. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/nf/) A generalized induction would be falsified if we ever observed the opposite, so "dead people don't rise again" is falsifiable. However, saying "Jesus did not rise from the dead because it is impossible to rise from the dead" is, essentially, saying that the consistency of our modern observations are not/should not be considered falsified by the mere existence of a falsifying account, especially since we know it is not only possible but prevalent in texts to give "accounts" of things that didn't actually happen. Given the absolute consistency of our observations, the burden of proof would be on those claiming it did happen, and I honestly don't think there IS any evidence good enough to support an account of such an event over our own observations.

Obviously, the “evidence” for someone rising from the dead is the first person accounts. We read them in the Gospels, which were written decades after the fact. So we read the Gospels and ask ourselves, “What is the most plausible explanation for this evidence (the written, first person accounts)?” One explanation is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. However, that contradicts our observation that people rarely, if ever, rise from the dead. So we ask ourselves, “Since this story is accepted by a great many people as true, are there plausible explanations for both the story and its widespread acceptance OTHER than Jesus rising from the dead?”

In the case of the dying and rising Gods, there are a great many competing explanations, including, but not limited to: common literary motifs in Middle Eastern mythology; psychological desires on the part of mortal humans, etc., etc.
So most agnostics and atheists think, “I don’t believe that the most plausible explanation for the evidence (i.e. the written eye witness testimonies) is that Jesus rose from the dead. I think there are other theories that are equally consistent with the evidence and are more plausible.”

Obviously, if the evidence was sturdier, we might have to re-evaluate. My friend who claims to have seen a Sasquatch doesn’t persuade me; it seems implausible that IF sasquatches were roaming the Pacific NW we wouldn’t have discovered sturdier evidence. But I’m not emotionally invested in the non-existence of Sasquatches. If compelling evidence arises, I’m glad to accept Sasquatches existence. It’s just that the evidence would have to be sufficiently compelling to overcome my grave doubts, based on the LACK of more compelling evidence, and the fact that there are competing theories consistent with the evidence of his eyewitness account (that he saw something else, and thought it was a sasquatch because he is obsessed with sasquatches).

MorpheusSandman

12-17-2013, 03:36 PM

One can also look at it from a Bayesian perspective and say that "given that Jesus rose from the dead, what is the probability it would've been written down?" and "given that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, what is the probability it would've been written down?" As for the former, I think it's fair to say that the former probability is close to 100% (hard to imagine someone rising from the dead and nobody writing about it!). As for the latter, I think we have to look at things like mythology and even fiction and say that it is very common to depict messianic figures as rising from the dead... but let's be conservative and put the estimate at 40%. If you put the prior probability of someone rising from the dead at a CONSERVATIVE 1%, then it would still be almost 40:1 against the accounts being true. The case gets worse, though, the more factors you take into account, as Carrier's Proving History convincingly argues. The problem is that I think people massively over-estimate how much a mere account should influence the consistency of our own experiences.

YesNo

12-17-2013, 06:10 PM

Obviously, the “evidence” for someone rising from the dead is the first person accounts. We read them in the Gospels, which were written decades after the fact. So we read the Gospels and ask ourselves, “What is the most plausible explanation for this evidence (the written, first person accounts)?” One explanation is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. However, that contradicts our observation that people rarely, if ever, rise from the dead. So we ask ourselves, “Since this story is accepted by a great many people as true, are there plausible explanations for both the story and its widespread acceptance OTHER than Jesus rising from the dead?”

People who report near-death experiences could reasonably be portrayed as having risen from the dead. I don't think such resurrection stories should surprise anyone today.

Although I'm not that familiar with the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, I do recall some years ago reading the post crucifixion events to see if these accounts could be interpreted as shared-death experiences. As I recall, I came to the conclusion that they all could be interpreted in that manner, although I might have missed some. That means they all could have happened.

For me, the most amazing parts of these accounts is not a physical resurrection but the massive amounts of shared death experiences that occurred after Jesus' crucifixion. That is what makes them stand out and that would be enough to justify a believer's faith.

MorpheusSandman

12-17-2013, 06:24 PM

People who report near-death experiences could reasonably be portrayed as having risen from the dead.Near-Death has that hyphenated qualifier before "death" for a reason. In no NDE was the deceased dead for three days.

Ecurb

12-17-2013, 07:29 PM

Besides, YesNo is simply offering one more alternative explanation for the stories that may be more credible than the official Christian explanation. Many alternatives exist -- although we should recognize that which of these we are willing to accept is influenced by our preconceptions and prejudices.

Nick Capozzoli

12-18-2013, 01:23 AM

A "miracle" is something than cannot be explained by our understanding of how the physical world "works." Of course that depends on how much we "know" about the physical world. I think it was Isaac Asimov who proposed that folks with a rather rudimentary "science" would be inclined to view more advanced technology as somehow "magical" or "miraculous," just because they would not be able to understand it as "natural."

The Bible describes things we consider "miraculous," such as Moses parting the Red Sea, the Sun and Moon stopping their movements in the sky, Lazarus being raised from the dead, Christ's resurrection, the feeding of multitudes with a few fishes and loaves, etc.

Folks have attempted to explain these and other biblical miracles by plausible ideas...such as earthquakes (the Red Sea) or simple mistakes (Lazarus wasn't really dead).

Then there is the question of improbability. If something is improbable enough, but still possible, is it a miracle? For example, there is nothing thermodynamically impossible about a glass of water at room temperature suddenly turning into ice or boiling away, though that would be very unlikely to spontaneously occur.

YesNo

12-18-2013, 09:20 AM

As Nick Capozzoli mentions, a miracle is what cannot be explained by our understanding of how the universe works. It is an unusual event. The fact that we are here at all could be viewed as miraculous although we are used to by now.

A religious person would view a miracle as something to justify a specific belief. Others with different belief systems might try to discredit the event. I think a middle ground would be to consider any event that occurs as natural, no matter how unusual it might be.

Some of the events in religious texts are likely stories. I would put the J portion of Genesis in that category along with the stories in the Srimad Bhagavatam. That they actually occurred is not important. Other unusual events, such as the stories surrounding Jesus or Krishna may have actually happened. One would only have to have seen similar events happen elsewhere in some form to grant them credibility.

The only events that puzzle me are physical transformations or manifestations such as turning water into wine or feeding the multitude. However, I think it is best to not jump to a conclusion that something could not happen that someone said occurred or to even jump to an explanation.

MorpheusSandman

12-18-2013, 01:08 PM

As Nick Capozzoli mentions, a miracle is what cannot be explained by our understanding of how the universe works. To call what we cannot currently explain a "miracle" (though I suspect we can explain the vast majority of so-called miracles, and the people that so-call them such simply don't like the answers. like Keats' rainbow. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/or/joy_in_the_merely_real/)), is to do nothing but worship your own ignorance. Again, Yudkowsky has the definitive explanation to this with a perfect example:
Imagine looking at your hand, and knowing nothing of cells, nothing of biochemistry, nothing of DNA. You've learned some anatomy from dissection, so you know your hand contains muscles; but you don't know why muscles move instead of lying there like clay. Your hand is just... stuff... and for some reason it moves under your direction. Is this not magic?

...

(Lord Kelvin's explanation) was the theory of vitalism; that the mysterious difference between living matter and non-living matter was explained by an elan vital or vis vitalis. Elan vital infused living matter and caused it to move as consciously directed. Elan vital participated in chemical transformations which no mere non-living particles could undergo—Wöhler's later synthesis of urea, a component of urine, was a major blow to the vitalistic theory because it showed that mere chemistry could duplicate a product of biology.

Calling "elan vital" an explanation, even a fake explanation like phlogiston, is probably giving it too much credit. It functioned primarily as a curiosity-stopper. You said "Why?" and the answer was "Elan vital!"

...

But the greater lesson lies in the vitalists' reverence for the elan vital, their eagerness to pronounce it a mystery beyond all science. Meeting the great dragon Unknown, the vitalists did not draw their swords to do battle, but bowed their necks in submission. They took pride in their ignorance, made biology into a sacred mystery, and thereby became loath to relinquish their ignorance when evidence came knocking.

...

But ignorance exists in the map, not in the territory. If I am ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about my own state of mind, not a fact about the phenomenon itself. A phenomenon can seem mysterious to some particular person. There are no phenomena which are mysterious of themselves. To worship a phenomenon because it seems so wonderfully mysterious, is to worship your own ignorance.Just replace "Elan vital" with "miracle!" and it's THE EXACT SAME THING.

Ecurb

12-18-2013, 04:27 PM

Nick says, “A "miracle" is something than cannot be explained by our understanding of how the physical world "works." Of course that depends on how much we "know" about the physical world.”

This definition embraces certain prejudices. The religious person understands precisely how the Red Sea was parted – God decided to part it to save his Chosen People. In fact, his “understanding of how the physical world ‘works’” is that it works in accordance to God’s will. For such a person, a miracle is a "super-natural" occurence -- and God is "super natural" because although He can affect nature, He is outside of nature Himself. (I'll grant it's all very confusing, and I'm trying to figure it out myself.)

It is true (of course, as morpheus points out) that many things that seem wonderfully mysterious (even miraculous) eventually yield to naturalistic, scientific explanation. No doubt from the point of view of an (imaginary) super-powerful, omniscient God who can part the Red Sea, there's nothing mysterious about it. He probably knows how it is done (if, as is unlikely, He did it).

YesNo

12-19-2013, 01:48 AM

I don't mean by "natural" a scientific explanation. Natural is just the way things are whatever super human agents might exist. This removes the miraculous or makes everything a miracle.

YesNo

12-19-2013, 01:58 AM

Near-Death has that hyphenated qualifier before "death" for a reason. In no NDE was the deceased dead for three days.

P. M. H. Atwater in The Big Book of Near-Death Experiences tells the story of George Rodonaia. On page 165 is the following:

George's corpse was stored in a freezer vault in the hospital morgue for three days (he doesn't know what the exact temperature was). He revived while the trunk of his body was being split open during autopsy.

He also had an NDE and informed the staff about an infant in the hospital with a broken hip that he discovered while dead.

MorpheusSandman

12-19-2013, 01:54 PM

I take every NDE story with a grain of salt because they have a rich history of getting wildly distorted in the retelling, as this essay (http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html) points out with a number of the most widely cited cases. What's more, Atwater, as far as I can tell, has zero scientific credentials and exclusively writes on NDEs from the perspective of a New Age believer, so not exactly the most reliable, unbiased source. After a quick Google search on George Rodonaia, it looks like the original story was "reported" by Pravda.ru, the same site that promotes that Global Warming, evolution, the moon landing, and HIV are hoaxes, so not exactly reliable either. It seems that George also knew about the boy beforehand. Any morgue freezer would be cold enough to significantly slow (if not suspend) the dying of cells (that's their entire purpose), so George was not dead when they put him in or pulled him out. Obviously, my statement was concerning ACTUALLY being dead for three days (not being NEAR dead and then stored at a temperature that would slow/suspend the dying of cells).

YesNo

12-19-2013, 05:07 PM

I think we can differ on whether George Rogonaia was actually dead or not. I think he was. This idea can be threatening to many belief systems, not just atheism.

There are enough cases of people rising from the dead (or supposed dead), to make credible the possibility that Jesus might have done something similar. However, what I find most surprising in those Christian texts are the quantities of shared-death experiences of the survivors. That is strong evidence in favor of Christianity.

More generally, the evidence from NDEs tell me it is reasonable to believe that consciousness is not generated by the brain. They provide another reason to throw out a mechanistic view of the universe.

I don't consider any NDE to be a "miracle", although I can see how some may view them in that manner. They are part of our reality. They also suggest that our reality is more unusual than what some of us believe it to be.

Delta40

12-19-2013, 05:40 PM

The Atheist

12-19-2013, 06:22 PM

I understand that one does not have to be dying to have these experiences. Pilots subject to strong G-forces have them as the blood drains from their brain.

Are they all christians? Sounds like they should be, having religious experiences from the G-force - after all, who created the G?? G-force, G-spot G-d.... there's a pattern there.

Do we know what the case was for all the billions of people who died before Jesus was born? Did they see Jesus as he will be in the future, or just the old fella with the long beard? Lucky there were no pilots in those days.

YesNo

12-20-2013, 12:03 AM

I understand that one does not have to be dying to have these experiences. Pilots subject to strong G-forces have them as the blood drains from their brain. Is there some criteria then for it to qualify as a miracle? As a person with epilepsy I experience real live interaction with others in my sleep. I can swear to feeling all the sensations of touching, smell, sound and moving through the landscape as if I were fully awake and actually there. If it were not for science, this too would be a miracle of God (or the Devils handiwork). Apparently if you stimulate with electricity, a part of the brain called the left and right angular gyrus, most people will report seeing a shadowy figure and have a classic out of body experience.

From what I understand, Raymond Moody, the guy who created the term "near-death experience" and "shared-death experience", was able to reproduce something similar to the experience without the subject actually dying.

I don't think of NDEs as miracles. It is just the sort of things that happen to some people whether or not there are Gods, or Devils, or other sorts of super human agents who may not even know we exist.

The experiments where the brain is stimulated and one sees something that isn't there or has an out of body experience show what is possible. However, if there is a shadowy person out there and you see that person and get a similar change in your brain, does that mean the person you saw was an illusion and not really out there?

MorpheusSandman

12-20-2013, 12:37 PM

I think we can differ on whether George Rogonaia was actually dead or not. I think he was. This idea can be threatening to many belief systems, not just atheism.Here we go again. Atheism IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM and has NOTHING to do with believing/disbelieving in NDEs or life after death. I really wish you'd quit lumping all of these beliefs (about LAD, NDEs, quantum physics, etc.) under "atheism" because atheism ONLY deals with whether or not someone believes in god(s). One cannot believe in god and still believe in other forms of spirituality, the supernatural, LAD, etc.

Also again, you only believe George was dead because you WANT to believe in LAD, despite what everything modern medical science has to tell us about the subject. We know that clinical/medical death is very different from actual death. There is a point past which modern medical science cannot bring a person back, and this is clinical death. However, we also know that brain and body cells are still "alive" for a long time past that point, and we also know that freezing slows/suspends the dying of such cells. From what I can glean from the case, Rodonaia was put into the morgue freezer very shortly after "clinical death," so there's absolutely NO evidence to suggest he was actually dead. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we should go with medical science, not just believe the opposite because one wants to believe in LAD.

There are enough cases of people rising from the dead (or supposed dead), to make credible the possibility that Jesus might have done something similar. However, what I find most surprising in those Christian texts are the quantities of shared-death experiences of the survivors. That is strong evidence in favor of Christianity.:lol: There are no "cases" of people "rising from the dead," there are stories of people being revived from being NEAR dead. You will not find a single case of someone being declared clinically dead, stuffed in a grave/tomb for three days, and THEN coming back WITHOUT the aid of a death-suspending freezer. What's more, there are tons of NDEs out there that DO NOT experience anything special, or experience something quite different than what believers do. If Christianity was true, everyone should come back and report the same experiences; we shouldn't have accounts of no experiences and wildly different experiences. What's more, until you find a case where a person's brain has completely shut down (IE, really dead, not near death), you can not rule out the brain as a cause behind such experiences. What's more, given that a number of aspects of NDEs can be generated in people without them being near-death (Delta listed several examples), we have no reason to believe any other experiences are being caused by anything other than the brain in an extreme state.

It's also clear you didn't read the page I linked to. Here is just the opening, which should be devastating to any belief that thinks NDE's and OBE's are REAL OBEs and NOT hallucinations:
As the Fenwicks point out, if OBEs and NDEs are hallucinations,

we should expect there to be major discrepancies between the psychological image—what the person sees from up there on the ceiling, which will be constructed by the brain entirely from memory; and the real image—what is actually going on at ground level. Mrs Ivy Davey, for example, did not see her body, although her body was clearly there (Fenwick and Fenwick 41).

And in the cases above this is exactly what we find. Discrepancies between what's seen out-of-body and what's actually happening in the physical world are found in spontaneous OBEs, in NDEs where a real or perceived threat of imminent harm triggers an OBE, and in NDEs that include an OBE along with other NDE components (e.g., a tunnel and light).What's more, if you just read this part of the article (http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#differences) it's clear that NDE's are extremely culturally influenced, with people of other cultures/religions encountering completely different "figures" on the other side. What's more, children rarely experience seeing anyone dead, but instead see living people, or even fantasy characters like Santa Claus, wizards, etc. This is all precisely what we'd expect to see if these experiences were happening IN THE PERSON'S BRAIN. If they were genuine experiences of things OUTSIDE the brain, we shouldn't see such cultural and age-dependent variations. We also wouldn't expect to see such "mistakes" being made in what OBEs report of the world around them, though mistakes are quite prevalent (and often omitted from the accounts given by believers).

YesNo

12-20-2013, 08:23 PM

There is a point past which modern medical science cannot bring a person back, and this is clinical death. However, we also know that brain and body cells are still "alive" for a long time past that point, and we also know that freezing slows/suspends the dying of such cells. From what I can glean from the case, Rodonaia was put into the morgue freezer very shortly after "clinical death," so there's absolutely NO evidence to suggest he was actually dead.

I suspect being in the freezer for three days should kill him off if he wasn't dead already.

Here's a story I came upon while looking up George Rodonaia. It is at the bottom of the page: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence10.html

There are two other NDE accounts I should mention here. One of them involves an African man named Emanuel Tuwagirairmana. What is interesting about his account is that he claims he was actually dead for seven days. When he returned to his body, it was partially eaten by maggots.

Even the worms thought he was dead.

If Christianity was true, everyone should come back and report the same experiences; we shouldn't have accounts of no experiences and wildly different experiences.

I'm not discussing this from a Christian perspective. I am only claiming that accounts of Jesus' resurrection should not surprise someone who has heard NDE stories. Some Christians I suspect would claim that only Jesus could rise from the dead and they would agree with you that people who have had NDEs were not actually dead since they came back to life. I claim they were actually dead.

Regarding reporting the same experiences, when you look out the window nearest you, what do you see? Do you see the same thing that I see when I look out the window? Of course not. We both look upon a different reality. Does that mean what each of us sees is not real? Of course not.

What's more, until you find a case where a person's brain has completely shut down (IE, really dead, not near death), you can not rule out the brain as a cause behind such experiences.

This challenge reminds me of Eben Alexander's famous NDE case. Here is the Wikipedia article on him containing comments by his critics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_(author)

Alexander makes this response to his critics in Newsweek quoted in that article:

"My synapses—the spaces between the neurons of the brain that support the electrochemical activity that makes the brain function — were not simply compromised during my experience. They were stopped. Only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, but no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call 'consciousness.' The E. coli bacteria that flooded my brain during my illness made sure of that. My doctors have told me that according to all the brain tests they were doing, there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact."

As I've mentioned, the NDE topic is threatening to many belief systems, not just atheism. Considering the quantity of these NDE claims and the need of critics to defend their world views, I accept what people like Alexander have to say over their critics. They had the experience, not the critics whose only interest is to defend their metaphysics at all costs.

What's more, given that a number of aspects of NDEs can be generated in people without them being near-death (Delta listed several examples), we have no reason to believe any other experiences are being caused by anything other than the brain in an extreme state.

One doesn't have to be near-death to experience heightened consciousness. The concept of "shared-death" experiences are what survivors sometimes experience that parallel the NDE. Also, religious disciplines could be viewed as a way to attain a heightened experience.

However, that these NDEs occur after death is evidence that consciousness survives death and that consciousness is not generated by the brain or other parts of the body.

To bring this all back to the topic of this thread: are NDEs miraculous? Well, some people might call them the works of the devil. Others might consider them "miracles". I maintain they are evidence of who we are.

MorpheusSandman

12-21-2013, 02:43 PM

I suspect being in the freezer for three days should kill him off if he wasn't dead already.This is not how freezers work. They suspend/slow the dying of cells. This is why a lot of rich people with incurable diseases are having their bodies frozen to be brought back in the future when cures have potentially been found. Freezers won't kill anyone.

I am only claiming that accounts of Jesus' resurrection should not surprise someone who has heard NDE stories... I claim they were actually dead.You can claim all you want, but there's zero scientific documentation/proof to support your statement, especially in the light of modern science. You will not find anything beyond unsupported STORIES (IE, not documented cases) of people being dead for multiple days and coming back.

Regarding reporting the same experiences, when you look out the window nearest you, what do you see? Do you see the same thing that I see when I look out the window? Of course not. We both look upon a different reality. Does that mean what each of us sees is not real? Of course not.This is a pitiful analogy for two reasons:

1. Actually, neither of us is seeing reality, but our brain's reconstruction and interpretation of information being sent to it from our eyes. What we experience seeing is, in fact, only a MAP of reality, an approximation. This is what makes various optical illusions possible (If you know how a brain interprets what it sees, you can fool it).

2. Disregarding the above, the CLAIM made by Christians is that NDE's are evidence for THEIR version of heaven/the afterlife being true. In fact, most believers who believe in a specific religion's version of the afterlife claim the same thing. The fact that there are such radically different experiences would argue against the claim that any one version is the REAL one that NDErs are experiencing.

3. Following from 2., the only way to claim that these experiences are real OBEs (ie, everyone's consciousness is seeing a reality independent from their body/brain) would be to claim that every culture's version of the afterlife is true and the NDErs are experiencing their culture's afterlife... which, pardon me, but that claim seems utterly absurd. It would amount to the idea that no matter what afterlife any given culture invents, their people would "experience" it as a reality after death. This means if I lived in a culture that thought the afterlife meant meeting Blabagul the omniscient turtle then I would, indeed, actually meet Blabagul when I died.

4. Because I find 3. absurd, the much more logical conclusion is that every NDE is happening inside the dying brains of people experiencing it. This would account for every discrepancy between experiences, since every individual would have a different "model" of the afterlife in their head, and would be "experiencing" this model in their brain as their brain is dying.

This challenge reminds me of Eben Alexander's famous NDE case. Here is the Wikipedia article on him containing comments by his critics:Alexander was positively demolished by Sam Harris (an actual neuroscientist) here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

Since I know you don't read links, I'll copy/paste the most relevant portions:
Everything—absolutely everything—in Alexander’s account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was “shut down,” “inactivated,” “completely shut down,” “totally offline,” and “stunned to complete inactivity.” The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate—it suggests that he doesn’t know anything about the relevant brain science… In his Newsweek article, Alexander asserts that the cessation of cortical activity was “clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.” To his editors, this presumably sounded like neuroscience.

The problem, however, is that “CT scans and neurological examinations” can’t determine neuronal inactivity—in the cortex or anywhere else. And Alexander makes no reference to functional data that might have been acquired by fMRI, PET, or EEG—nor does he seem to realize that only this sort of evidence could support his case. Obviously, the man’s cortex is functioning now—he has, after all, written a book—so whatever structural damage appeared on CT could not have been “global.” (Otherwise, he would be claiming that his entire cortex was destroyed and then grew back.) Coma is not associated with the complete cessation of cortical activity, in any case. And to my knowledge, almost no one thinks that consciousness is purely a matter of cortical activity. Alexander’s unwarranted assumptions are proliferating rather quickly…

I confess that I found Alexander’s account so alarmingly unscientific that I began to worry that something had gone wrong with my own brain. So I sought the opinion of Mark Cohen, a pioneer in the field of neuroimaging who holds appointments in the Departments of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Science, Neurology, Psychology, Radiological Science, and Bioengineering at UCLA. (He was also my thesis advisor.) Here is part of what he had to say:

“This poetic interpretation of his experience is not supported by evidence of any kind. As you correctly point out, coma does not equate to “inactivation of the cerebral cortex” or “higher-order brain functions totally offline” or “neurons of [my] cortex stunned into complete inactivity”. These describe brain death, a one hundred percent lethal condition. There are many excellent scholarly articles that discuss the definitions of coma. (For example: 1 & 2)

We are not privy to his EEG records, but high alpha activity is common in coma. Also common is “flat” EEG. The EEG can appear flat even in the presence of high activity, when that activity is not synchronous. For example, the EEG flattens in regions involved in direct task processing. This phenomenon is known as event-related desynchronization (hundreds of references).

As is obvious to you, this is truth by authority. Neurosurgeons, however, are rarely well-trained in brain function. Dr. Alexander cuts brains; he does not appear to study them…

There are many reports of people remembering dream-like states while in medical coma. They lack consistency, of course, but there is nothing particularly unique in Dr. Alexander’s unfortunate episode.”

…there are further problems with Alexander’s account. Not only does he appear ignorant of the relevant science, but he doesn’t realize how many people have experienced visions similar to his while their brains were operational. In his online interview we learn about the kinds of conversations he’s now having with skeptics:

“I guess one could always argue, “Well, your brain was probably just barely able to ignite real consciousness and then it would flip back into a very diseased state,” which doesn’t make any sense to me. Especially because that hyper-real state is so indescribable and so crisp. It’s totally unlike any drug experience. A lot of people have come up to me and said, “Oh that sounds like a DMT experience,” or “That sounds like ketamine.” Not at all. That is not even in the right ballpark.

Those things do not explain the kind of clarity, the rich interactivity, the layer upon layer of understanding and of lessons taught by deceased loved ones and spiritual beings.”
“Not even in the right ballpark”? His experience sounds so much like a DMT trip that we are not only in the right ballpark, we are talking about the stitching on the same ball. Here is Alexander’s description of the afterlife:

… (Snipped: you can read the description in the link)

Everything that Alexander describes here and in his Newsweek article, including the parts I have left out, has been reported by DMT users. The similarity is uncanny. Here is how the late Terence McKenna described the prototypical DMT trance:

… (snipped: you can read the description in the link, or just trust that it’s almost identical to Alexander’s)

… He clearly knows nothing about what people with working brains experience under the influence of psychedelics. Nor does he know that visions of the sort that McKenna describes, although they may seem to last for ages, require only a brief span of biological time. Unlike LSD and other long-acting psychedelics, DMT alters consciousness for merely a few minutes. Alexander would have had more than enough time to experience a visionary ecstasy as he was coming out of his coma (whether his cortex was rebooting or not).

Does Alexander know that DMT already exists in the brain as a neurotransmitter? Did his brain experience a surge of DMT release during his coma? This is pure speculation, of course, but it is a far more credible hypothesis than that his cortex “shut down,” freeing his soul to travel to another dimension. As one of his correspondents has already informed him, similar experiences can be had with ketamine, which is a surgical anesthetic that is occasionally used to protect a traumatized brain. Did Alexander by any chance receive ketamine while in the hospital? Would he even think it relevant if he had? His assertion that psychedelics like DMT and ketamine “do not explain the kind of clarity, the rich interactivity, the layer upon layer of understanding” he experienced is perhaps the most amazing thing he has said since he returned from heaven. Such compounds are universally understood to do the job. And most scientists believe that the reliable effects of psychedelics indicate that the brain is at the very least involved in the production of visionary states of the sort Alexander is talking about.

Again, there is nothing to be said against Alexander’s experience. It sounds perfectly sublime. And such ecstasies do tell us something about how good a human mind can feel. The problem is that the conclusions Alexander has drawn from his experience—he continually reminds us, as a scientist—are based on some very obvious errors in reasoning and gaps in his understanding.

Let me suggest that, whether or not heaven exists, Alexander sounds precisely how a scientist should not sound when he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

As I've mentioned, the NDE topic is threatening to many belief systems, not just atheism. Again, atheism is not a belief system, but just like in our QM debates, I'm sure you'll keep repeating this falsity ad nauseam.

...I accept what people like Alexander have to say over their critics.I accept Alexander's description of his experience, I do not accept his interpretation of the experience, and the two are very different things. Alexander had a lot to say, and unfortunately, the majority where he's interpreting do nothing but reveal his ignorance about neuroscience. Keep in mind that neurosurgeons are to neuroscientists as construction workers are to architects. Alexander's response didn't address any of the points Harris and other nueroscientists made, it just repeated the same claims he'd already claimed... not terribly different than your debate strategy.

However, that these NDEs occur after deathThey don't, they occur NEAR death. You seem to forget that NDE is "NEAR-Death experience," not ADE or AFTER-Death experience. You can not find a single solitary documented case of an AFTER death experience.

Nick Capozzoli

12-22-2013, 03:51 AM

I accept Alexander's description of his experience, I do not accept his interpretation of the experience, and the two are very different things. Alexander had a lot to say, and unfortunately, the majority where he's interpreting do nothing but reveal his ignorance about neuroscience. Keep in mind that neurosurgeons are to neuroscientists as construction workers are to architects. Alexander's response didn't address any of the points Harris and other neuroscientists made, it just repeated the same claims he'd already claimed... not terribly different than your debate strategy.

OK, and I also am willing to accept Dr. Alexander's description of his NDE. But I think your dismissal of his scientific training as a neurosurgeon is a bit glib. He earned his MD at a good medical school and went on to complete his residency in neurosurgery at an excellent residency program. He may not have had the academic neuroscience training of a PhD in neuroscience, but I can assure you that he, like all modern Board Certified neurosurgeons, would certainly have a very good working understanding of the human nervous system. Oliver Sacks, a very thoughtful neurologist, did lament what he felt was Dr. Alexander's apparently "anti-scientific" refusal to believe that there could be a "rational" (i.e. non-religious) explanation for his NDE. But he didn't claim that Dr. Alexander's account of his NDE should be dismissed because of his "ignorance of neuroscience."

This thread began as a discussion about "miracles." I previously posted my definition of a miracle as something that defies "scientific" explanation, and I mentioned as one example the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Somehow this led to discussion of NDE narratives, which is not the same sort of thing.

Lazarus, in the New Testament account, was dead. He was sealed in his tomb for three days, not in a refrigerator. According to the Gospel of John, he was not only dead but was actually stinking from decay when Jesus commanded to arise. If the Gospel account is true, that was a miracle.

All of the modern accounts of persons "returned from death" [or near-death] to life could be explained by supposing that they were not "irreversibly" dead. We could suppose that they "seemed dead" but their bodies (mainly their brains) appeared to be dead, so far as we were able to tell. But in fact they were not really dead.

This begs the question of what is the difference between life and death and how we can determine when a once living body is truly dead.

YesNo

12-22-2013, 11:57 AM

Regarding the disagreements between Alexander and Harris, both have had experiences that have been studied. Alexander had a near death experience and Harris appears to have experiences of cognitive dissonance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Because of that, I can't trust that Harris is being rational. He is more likely rationalizing to reduce the pain of dissonance caused by the evidence Alexander presents. When he uses phrases like "unwarranted" or "alarmingly unscientific", I pick up that Harris is frantic.

Harris writes (as quoted by MorpheusSandman) the following

Obviously, the man’s cortex is functioning now—he has, after all, written a book—so whatever structural damage appeared on CT could not have been “global.”

That part exposes the cognitive dissonance Harris must be feeling. Not only did Alexander have an NDE, but given the illness he had, his recovery could be viewed as miraculous if anything was. If Alexander's account is true, Harris's atheistic metaphysics has been falsified by that evidence.

From our distance, it is not easy to tell what the full truth is. However, I have heard enough stories of NDEs and I know, personally as well as watching others, what cognitive dissonance feels like. Because of that I have no reason to doubt the evidence that Alexander presents.

Alexander wasn't dead when he had his experience. He was on life-support, but people don't have to be dead when they have NDEs and certainly the survivors who experience shared death experiences aren't dead. That doesn't mean that people haven't actually died and come back to life. Of course, as Nick Capozzoli mentions that depends on knowing when a body is actually dead.

The question whether raising Lazarus was a miracle, brings up a feature about miracles. They occur because of an intention. Jesus told Lazarus to rise from the dead. He didn't just come back. If one can associate through belief or some other means, such as watching Jesus tell Lazarus to rise, that an event was the result of super human agency, then I can see how one could call that a miracle rather than just an unusual event.

YesNo

12-22-2013, 12:31 PM

4. Because I find 3. absurd, the much more logical conclusion is that every NDE is happening inside the dying brains of people experiencing it. This would account for every discrepancy between experiences, since every individual would have a different "model" of the afterlife in their head, and would be "experiencing" this model in their brain as their brain is dying.

You are assuming that these models are inside the brain somewhere. That is what you need to show.

MorpheusSandman

12-22-2013, 01:06 PM

I think your dismissal of his scientific training as a neurosurgeon is a bit glib... Oliver Sacks, a very thoughtful neurologist... didn't claim that Dr. Alexander's account of his NDE should be dismissed because of his "ignorance of neuroscience."He doesn't come right out and say it, but that's very much what he's implying. This reminds me of an exchange I had with mal4mac on Many Worlds where he disliked the "rhetoric" of a few authors I linked to, and posted a link to Sean Carroll whom was saying the same thing, but it a much more affable way. In fact, it was so affable that when I said Carroll claimed a certain interpretation "makes no sense and is only accepted by people who don't think about it," mal boldly retorted "he didn't say that!" even though he clearly did, only couched in implicit qualifiers (you can follow this brief exchange here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?77047-which-should-win&p=1244015&viewfull=1#post1244015 starting with the bottom quote). Point being: don't mistake tone for what's being claimed.

Sacks is implying that Alexander is quite ignorant of the relevant science by pointing out how he's ignoring alternatives, or making extremely dubious claims. In fact, calling him "anti-scientific" would arguably be worse to a scientist than calling him "ignorant" on a particular topic of science. I'm quite certain that Sacks utterly agrees with Harris's statement that: "everything — absolutely everything — in Alexander’s account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate — it suggests that he doesn’t know anything about the relevant brain science.” Harris provides a long list of reasons why the claim is inadequate, Sacks provides but a few, but both are making, essentially, the same claim that Alexander's claims are extremely dubious and, if not "ignorant," than quite "anti-scientific."

MorpheusSandman

12-22-2013, 01:37 PM

...Harris appears to have experiences of cognitive dissonance: ...Because of that, I can't trust that Harris is being rational.:rolleyes:

I've got you figured out, YesNo. Here's the pattern: everyone that has an "experience" and seeks to explain that experience is perfectly accurate, rational, knowledgeable and correct when their explanations agree with your beliefs. Anyone that casts doubts on those explanations, regardless of their expertise, is a victim of cognitive dissonance, irrational, and acting out of a perceived threat to their metaphysics. It's not enough that you have three (!!!) leading neuroscientists (Harris, Sacks, Cohen) pointing out the ignorance of Alexander's claims, it surely must be that all are suffering from cognitive dissonance. Of course, that's an extremely convenient accusation: Simply claim something and, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how ignorant, no matter how many experts disagree, simply claim that anyone whom disagrees is a victim of cognitive dissonance. Brilliant!

Harris writes (as quoted by MorpheusSandman) the following

Obviously, the man’s cortex is functioning now—he has, after all, written a book—so whatever structural damage appeared on CT could not have been “global.”

That part exposes the cognitive dissonance Harris must be feeling. How in the world does that quote "expose" Harris's supposed cognitive dissonance?

From our distance, it is not easy to tell what the full truth is.One doesn't have to know what the full truth is to recognize that there are multiple possible truths, some far more likely than others. In fact, only Alexander is claiming to "tell the full truth," while Harris, Cohen, Sacks have pointed out multiple other possible truths that are far more likely given what we know about neuroscience; furthermore, they've provided ample evidence that Alexander's evidence is not even sufficient to support his factual claims. One of the most simple and damning examples is this:

"Alexander asserts that the cessation of cortical activity was “clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations..." The problem, however, is that “CT scans and neurological examinations” can’t determine neuronal inactivity—in the cortex or anywhere else. And Alexander makes no reference to functional data that might have been acquired by fMRI, PET, or EEG—nor does he seem to realize that only this sort of evidence could support his case."

So, YesNo, I'd like to see you explicitly address the claim above: what are we to make of the fact that Alexander claims that his cortex was shut down based on the evidence of CT scans and neurological examinations, even though CT scans and neurological examinations can't determine neuronal inactivity? Why are you assuming the truth of his claim when his evidence is so insufficient?

people don't have to be dead when they have NDEs... Actually people have to NOT be dead to have an NDE, since NDE stands for NEAR-death experience, as I've pointed out multiple times to you (and you continue to ignore, as usual).

You are assuming that these models are inside the brain somewhere. That is what you need to show.What the funk do you think the brain does? If you believe "the wall is white" is the thought "the wall is white" not stored in your brain? Similarly, if the belief "I will meet Garbagul when I died" not stored in the brain?

Calidore

12-22-2013, 01:44 PM

YesNo

12-22-2013, 04:51 PM

What the funk do you think the brain does? If you believe "the wall is white" is the thought "the wall is white" not stored in your brain? Similarly, if the belief "I will meet Garbagul when I died" not stored in the brain?

Where precisely in the brain is it stored?

YesNo

12-22-2013, 05:28 PM

http://news.discovery.com/human/health/brain-activity-shows-basis-of-near-death-experience-130813.htm

And a Q & A with the study's author:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130814-near-death-brain-life-after-death-bright-light/

From what I understand this article claims there is evidence of a 30 second window of brain activity after a cardiac arrest. In general the existence of brain activity is not the critical issue, but the 30 second window is not a lot of time. One would expect there to be brain activity if the person is still alive. The people who have shared death experiences are all alive. If the person is dead, there should be no brain activity.

There are two basic ways to look at the brain as I understand it. Either it generates consciousness or it filters consciousness somewhat like a radio resonates with an electromagnetic wave converting the information into sound waves for us to hear, if one ignores the machine analogy.

If the brain generates consciousness, it must store the memories. I don't know where those memories are stored. Also, if that model were true, I don't see how one could artificially stimulate the brain and generate things like out of body experiences which have been demonstrated. So, it seems to me the brain functions more as a filter for consciousness rather than a generator of consciousness.

MorpheusSandman

12-22-2013, 08:36 PM

Where precisely in the brain is it stored?Don't know. Ask a neuroscientist. Oh, wait, I forgot... you think they all suffer from cognitive dissonance when they doubt claims made about what is/isn't or can/can't happen in the brain during a coma by non-neuroscientists.

YesNo

12-23-2013, 01:10 AM

Don't know.

No worries. I don't know either, however, I'm now curious.

I did find this one, dated August 13, 2013, so it is not too out of date: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-flatworms-memories-brain.html

What you have to do is this:

1) Find a species you can train to do something.
2) Assume the memory is stored in some body part that the species can do without.
3) In the case of planarian flatworms, their entire brain is apparently disposable, so assume their memories are stored somewhere in their brains.
4) After they have been trained, cut off their heads and see if they can still remember what you taught them.

Edit:

I just found this about slime molds: http://www.livescience.com/23797-brainless-slime-mold-memories.html It looks like they have a brainless form of memory. What I find even more amazing is that it looks like they make choices based on those memories. Does that mean they're intelligent in some way?

In order to link this back to the OP, maybe I should just say, "It's a miracle!"

Edit 2:

Speaking of intelligence, and getting back to higher forms of life, here is a video describing the savant Daniel Tammet who uses synesthesia to learn languages and calculate: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-boy-with-the-incredible-brain/

It is a good thing they called him a savant rather than a psychic although I wonder what the difference is between the two. As a child he had a seizure which left him in this state and it makes me wonder what the difference is between that and an NDE.

Is Tammet's ability "miraculous"?

MorpheusSandman

12-23-2013, 11:49 AM

I don't know either, however... maybe I should just say, "It's a miracle!"With a bit of clever editing, I just showed how your post accurately describes ALL claims of miracles!

YesNo

12-23-2013, 12:02 PM

With a bit of clever editing, I just showed how your post accurately describes ALL claims of miracles!

I doubt it, but I am not looking for miracles. That doesn't mean that the non-miraculous, mechanistic belief system is correct. That looks even more false than saying something is miraculous.

MorpheusSandman

12-23-2013, 03:04 PM

That looks even more false than saying something is miraculous."More false"? Huh? Having a natural cause behind unexplained phenomena is the opposite of proclaiming divine/supernatural miracles. One can not be "more false" or "more right" as they're mutually incompatible explanations. Every "miracle" claim is identical to the "God of the gaps" fallacy: "we don't know, so God/miracle!" The entire history of science, especially modern science, is one of finding natural, mechanistic explanations behind what were once explained by God and miracles. There is no evidence that trend won't continue as our knowledge increases.

The Atheist

12-23-2013, 09:37 PM

It's not enough that you have three (!!!) leading neuroscientists (Harris, Sacks, Cohen)...

Not that I disagree with your argument, but it's an enormous stretch to call Sam Harris a "leading" neuroscientist.

If you don't count blog posts as "publications", his output is minimal, and his research is neither particularly original or insightful.

Then, if you ever thought Sam Harris was worth listening to, you'd only have to read his defence of torture or profiling to realise that he is a legend in his own mind only.

A [very short] list of his actual neuroscience publications can be found here: http://www.jneurosci.org/

MorpheusSandman

12-23-2013, 10:39 PM

Not that I disagree with your argument, but it's an enormous stretch to call Sam Harris a "leading" neuroscientist.Fair enough, though the argument works just as well without the "leading" adjective, and is probably all the more damning if even a middling or substandard neuroscientist can point out the glaring flaws in Alexander's claims. I am not a big fan of Harris' philosophical writings, and I would agree there are far better atheism advocates out there, but I'd never heard anything said against him as a neuroscientist.

Nick Capozzoli

12-23-2013, 11:35 PM

He doesn't come right out and say it, but that's very much what he's implying...

...Sacks is implying that Alexander is quite ignorant of the relevant science by pointing out how he's ignoring alternatives, or making extremely dubious claims. In fact, calling him "anti-scientific" would arguably be worse to a scientist than calling him "ignorant" on a particular topic of science. I'm quite certain that Sacks utterly agrees with Harris's statement that: "everything — absolutely everything — in Alexander’s account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate — it suggests that he doesn’t know anything about the relevant brain science.” Harris provides a long list of reasons why the claim is inadequate, Sacks provides but a few, but both are making, essentially, the same claim that Alexander's claims are extremely dubious and, if not "ignorant," than quite "anti-scientific."

You are probably right about Sacks's circumspection compared to Harris's re Alexander's supposed "ignorance" of neuroscience. I agree with Sacks's opinion, and find it more measured and polite.

I do believe that all of our subjective experiences, including NDE, are produced by our brains. We still do not know exactly how our brains produce our conscious experience of the world, but we are very certain that the brain is the organ that provides us with such experience. The human brain has evolved over time to be what it is.

The brain is part of the body, and depends on the rest of the body to remain "alive" to do what it does. The same applies to any other bodily organs, such as the skin and muscles. When the body "dies," its tissues and organs can no longer "live" and will sooner or later "die," mainly from lack of oxygen and nutrients. By organ death, I mean "irreversible" injury to the cellular tissues of the body. The time for particular body tissues and organs to "die" varies. For example, after cardiac arrest the brain typically dies after about 5 minutes, maybe longer if there are factors, such as hypothermia, that could slow the entropic degradation of the tissues. Some tissues and organs, like the skin, kidneys, and heart, can survive longer periods of cardiac arrest. Indeed, this is the reason that such tissues can be used for organ transplantation.

Unlike these other "unconscious" tissues, the brain has a function of "awareness." During cardiac arrest, the brain is deprived of oxygen and reacts to the loss, presumably by producing the "experiences" of NDE. That may include all sorts of experiences, such as visual hallucinations (the tunnel and white light) the experience of random memories, etc.).

I don't think that we need to invoke any "miracles" about NDE's, as these could be explained as due to the in extremis function of the human brain.

A "real" miracle would be the resuscitation of a thermodynamically "dead" brain and body, i.e. the Biblical resurrection of Lazarus.