This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Tartonga
Well, so far the biggest figures I have heard of from my university are
Bernardo Houssay
and
Mario Bunge
. But that's old and was the time where the university was rich on knowledge. It has lost some of that essence over the years, taking in mind the fact that is a free of charge university, I mean noone has to pay for education, except the books and stuff.
Post by
ExDementia
It wasn't the whole point of view. It was one incident showing faith healing to not work.
The problem is, any incident showing faith healing does work is dismissed as coincidence. /shrug
Actually the article I quoted covered 172 separate cases. I knew you wouldn't read my entire post.
Define 'certifiable'. A peer-reviewed journal is not necessarily 'certifiable' or 'reliable', nor even 'correct'. Unless I understood how a study was put together, I wouldn't prescribe any sort of validity or credibility to published papers, simply because I know how flawed many of them can be.
By certifiable I mean something even close to how doctors document treatment of their patients. Anything I was able to find on faith healing just said that it happened and worked, whereas with a more conventional medical treatment, they have journals of symptoms, observations, test results, photographs, even video sometimes.
I would like to see something even close to that with a case of successful faith healing. It might exist, but in my research (albeit brief) I have found nothing. In fact, I have come across an enormous amount of incidents which have gone bad which leads me to my ultimate point:
Even if faith healing can happen, it is huge, unnecessary risk. Some have said that faith healing can happen, but is rare, since god doesn't always want to just hand out miracles to any shlub with a $2 prayer book, but for you to earn it.
Also, even with the assumption that it can happen, we all have to admit there are a lot of frauds out there. T.V. Priests on stage claiming to cure ailments when some have people in the audience faking sickness.
Peter Popoff
is one example of someone who was actually caught doing this type of scandal. Then
Kathryn Kuhlman
claimed similar abilities when she had one woman who was said to have been cured of her spinal cancer, took off her brace and ran across the stage at Kuhlman's command. Her spine collapsed the following day and she died four months later.
This is the best I could find on the side of faith healing.
It covers many studies done, but it is all (at least) second hand information, fairly vague and have no other documentation of these cases, or citations.
Post by
Squishalot
Actually the article I quoted covered 172 separate cases. I knew you wouldn't read my entire post.
It's fairly clear that Funden was referring to your original comment, and didn't care about your copy-paste extract.
Also, even with the assumption that it can happen, we all have to admit there are a lot of frauds out there.
And again, this is what I mean about presenting a one-sided case and 'attacking' faith healing. The implication is that the majority of faith healers are frauds. How do you know that? How many fraudulent faith healers are there, compared to legitimate faith healers? How can you say that 'there are a lot of frauds' if you don't know how many there are?
There are a number of medical frauds out there too.
Here's
three
examples
that I found as 3 out of the top 4 links in Google when searching for "fraudulent doctors australia". That doesn't even cover cases of simple malpractice - these are just people making claims about being doctors without being ones.
Now, there are (most likely, I'd hope!) more good medical doctors than fraudulent medical doctors out there. I can walk into a hospital and conduct an audit of doctors' qualifications and test whether they're fraudulent or not. In fact, the medical profession does that on occasion, lending evidence to suggest that the majority of doctors are not fraudulent. If they found evidence of a lot of fraud going on, as a proportion of total doctors, I could only then conclude the point that there is a lot of fraud going on.
Now, tell me, how do you conclude that there is a lot of fraud in the world of faith healing?
For reference:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019533650X/bpo01-20
Title: Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World
Author: Jacalyn Duffin, M.D. (Toronto 1974), FRCP(C) (1979), Ph.D. (Sorbonne 1985)
As I understand (because I haven't found a copy of the book in any libraries around here), it goes through the medical background behind a number of miracles (i.e. faith healing) that have occurred that led to subsequent canonisation of a Catholic saint. She appears to conclude that the healing occurred in at least the majority of cases she looked at is 'miraculous', without attempting to attribute it to faith or to 'unknown variables', as a theist or atheist might try to.
The Catholic Church goes to some great deal of effort to confirm that a patient is healed through non-identifiable, non-medical means before accepting it as evidence of a miracle. This field is worth looking into before you write it off completely.
Post by
Tartonga
That doesn't even cover cases of simple malpractice - these are just people making claims about being doctors without being ones.
Stop here for a second, what did you mean with that D:?
---
On a side note, (look what I learned today) medicine is not a science, it's the art of healing. It uses the science and that's why it's a scientifically informed practice. The point to difference both terms is that, there are often cases of patients whose symptoms don't match their signs; for example a patient who has headaches, then a doctor gives him soothings, even though after all the neurological tests the patient was healthy. The patient feels confortable until he ran out of soothings after 2 weeks. After 1 month the same patient comes again, because he has headaches again, the doctor gives him soothings again after making another neurological tests and some resonances, just in case there is something missing but apparently nothing. After another month the patient comes back again, because he still has headaches, but then the doctor delivers the patient to the department of psychiatry and there the patient receives a psychological evaluation, and after that he receives some placebos as if they were real soothings for 6 months. The man didn't come back even though what he was taking was nothing.
What cured him? It was nothing more than the fact of consulting with someone reliable that can leave the human psyche calm. There was no science needed here after all, all he needed was to feel confident in good hands. The human psyche is strong enough to create diseases and to heal homeostasis related diseases by itself.
Now, and this is purely my conjecture, a man who believes in faith may not need science to be healed from homeostasis related diseases, however I find arguably hard to impossible for someone like that to be cured from an infectious disease or some autoimmune diseases.
Post by
Squishalot
Stop here for a second, what did you mean with that D:?
Stopped.
I meant that ExDementia is saying that there are a lot of fraudulent faith-healers out there, who aren't capable of healing but claiming that they are. My counterargument is that there are fraudulent medical doctors out there, who don't even have a medical degree, but are actively practising in hospitals, and as such, saying that 'there are a lot' without quantifying the 'lot' is irrelevant.
Re: healing:
There was a thread by someone recently (Skree, do you remember?) on the topic of bio-medicine of some sort - the idea that we can train our bodies to use the placebo effect at will, to some extent. Doing so may allow us to go from curing little things like headaches, to curing big things like autoimmune diseases.
Now, by definition, a good medicinal drug will always cure things faster (since if the drug is having a positive effect, you'll get the drug effect *AND* the placebo effect). But that doesn't change the fact that placebo healing is possible.
Post by
ExDementia
It's fairly clear that Funden was referring to your original comment, and didn't care about your copy-paste extract.
A quoted and cited source is hardly just a "copy and paste extract" that should just be ignored.
And again, this is what I mean about presenting a one-sided case and 'attacking' faith healing. The implication is that the majority of faith healers are frauds.
Squish, you are getting quite good at taking only what you want from what I say. :P Where did I say the majority was fraudulent? I said that there were a lot of them, which if you google "faith healers" you will find right there on the first page. And yes, there are a lot of fraudulent medical doctors too.
And again, this is what I mean about presenting a one-sided case and 'attacking' faith healing.
So far everything
you have posted
has been attacking and is even more one-sided than mine. My posts at least state that I have researched both sides and even came up with counter arguments, like where I quoted Robert Gilbert saying the data could be biased and inaccurate. And yes I know you said you didn't actually believe in this, that proves you would be excellent on a debate team :).
Even if faith healing can happen, it is huge, unnecessary risk. Some have said that faith healing can happen, but is rare, since god doesn't always want to just hand out miracles to any shlub with a $2 prayer book, but for you to earn it.
^ Another thing you side stepped. To expand on that:
Assuming god does exist and faith healing is a real thing, it seems to work only on chosen occasions, and I think there is a reason for that. Miracles like this should not be a power that can be wielded by anyone who choses to here on earth. A miracle is, by definition, an act of god, and should be treated as such.
Because God likes you to try and do things yourself. If you just ask Him to heal you, it's showing that you are lazy and want Him to do everything for you.
This is exactly what I was about to say. This is what bothers me about those T.V. faith healer frauds. God would not let his power be used on a whim just to line the pockets of that priest. (If faith healers do exist, they are NOT the guys on stage exploiting peoples faith for money, they are the real priests that are actually trying to do good in the world.)
(Assuming he is real)God gave us the tools and skills to heal ourselves, just like he gave us the tools and skills to feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves. Through His design, we are able to practice medicine, and develop new ways to cure ourselves of our ailments. Why pass that up? Seeing as how faith healing is not universal, why not use our gift of intelligence in conjunction with prayer? It is just too risky to presume upon miraculous powers, when a simple, practiced medical procedure can save a life so easily?
If I was religious, that is how I would see this subject. It is just such a shame to see innocent children lost to such easily remedied problems. Take my appendicitis (it burst) for example, what if my parents hadn't taken me to the hospital for surgery? I wouldn't be here arguing thats for sure.
Post by
Tartonga
Stop here for a second, what did you mean with that D:?
Stopped.
I meant that ExDementia is saying that there are a lot of fraudulent faith-healers out there, who aren't capable of healing but claiming that they are. My counterargument is that there are fraudulent medical doctors out there, who don't even have a medical degree, but are actively practising in hospitals, and as such, saying that 'there are a lot' without quantifying the 'lot' is irrelevant.
Ah, ok ok. Yeah, forgers and people who are located on certain levels from a job thanks to personal contacts $uck.
Re: healing:
There was a thread by someone recently (Skree, do you remember?) on the topic of bio-medicine of some sort - the idea that we can train our bodies to use the placebo effect at will, to some extent. Doing so may allow us to go from curing little things like headaches, to curing big things like autoimmune diseases.
Now, by definition, a good medicinal drug will always cure things faster (since if the drug is having a positive effect, you'll get the drug effect *AND* the placebo effect). But that doesn't change the fact that placebo healing is possible.
I really really agree. And I was thinking and got an open question:
Can the placebo effect be "activated" without any
physical
placebo, but instead - let's say - with faith (acting like a placebo)?
Post by
Squishalot
Squish, you are getting quite good at taking only what you want from what I say. :P Where did I say the majority was fraudulent? I said that there were a lot of them, which if you google "faith healers" you will find right there on the first page. And yes, there are a lot of fraudulent medical doctors too.
It's the implication, in context with everything else you've said about faith healing.
So far everything you have posted has been attacking and is even more one-sided than mine. My posts at least state that I have researched both sides and even came up with counter arguments, like where I quoted Robert Gilbert saying the data could be biased and inaccurate. And yes I know you said you didn't actually believe in this, that proves you would be excellent on a debate team :).
Of course. The implication is that you've already presented the other side, so I don't need to :)
I still don't think a caveat is sufficient to claim a lack of bias. It's like saying "Not all black people are like this, but this black guy came and shat on my car the other day" - the bias / discrimination is implicit in the statement, caveat or not.
^ Another thing you side stepped. To expand on that:
Assuming god does exist and faith healing is a real thing, it seems to work only on chosen occasions, and I think there is a reason for that. Miracles like this should not be a power that can be wielded by anyone who choses to here on earth. A miracle is, by definition, an act of god, and should be treated as such.
I didn't side step it, I ignored it as irrelevant. If anything, you're suggesting that the majority of faith healers are 'some shlub with $2 prayer book'. Assuming a god does exist, why must it be 'special'? And furthermore, if faith healing is really just a type of placebo impact, does a god even come into the question?
The thing is, you're assuming 'faith healing' = 'miracles', when that's not necessarily true. Sure, it's the most publicised version of faith healing, but the placebo effect that Tartonga and I are talking about right now is another version.
Can the placebo effect be "activated" without any physical placebo, but instead - let's say - with faith (acting like a placebo)?
Of course. If you think you're going to get better, irrespective of whether or not you take anything for it, you're more likely to get better than someone who thinks they're going to die. The power of positive thoughts, a 'will to live' per se, is a placebo effect.
Post by
Tartonga
Of course. If you think you're going to get better, irrespective of whether or not you take anything for it, you're more likely to get better than someone who thinks they're going to die. The power of positive thoughts, a 'will to live' per se, is a placebo effect.
Exactly! That's what I think as well. And here is the final question where religious people will hate me for doing:
Faith healing does work, as we think, for certain diseases thanks to the positivism/placebo effect. However, what are the miracles then? Is every successful faith healing treatment considered a miracle (I mean, not obviously from a medical point of view)?
On the topic of 'what causes homosexuality', there are a lot of theories, because nobody's confirmed anything. If your psychology teachers suggest that there is a consensus that "this is why people are homosexual", they're probably wrong. But given their response to your question about the 'homosexual gene", they're probably smarter than that.
About that...my teachers didn't come today, but there was a lonely substitute teacher and I asker her and she said something like: Well, even though there are theories, none could be proved for now. However there are certain factors that the psychology consider part of the sexual orientation. When we progress through the year you will see that during the encephalic -blah blah blah, can't remember the whole thing she said - maduration, your growing atmosphere and -blah blah blah- are going to play an important role on this...but I invite you to make me this same question after we progressed.
I kinda summed it up, she actually gave me a bigger explanation, but she insisted that that I should ask her that later. <.<
Post by
ExDementia
Ok, I think arguing on internet forums is sufficiently difficult since there is no good way to convey a tone or emotion in your posts. It's too easy to mis-understand what everyone is saying, and things come out badly on both sides. I will leave it as it is.
:)
Post by
Squishalot
Faith healing does work, as we think, for certain diseases thanks to the positivism/placebo effect. However, what are the miracles then? Is every successful faith healing treatment considered a miracle (I mean, not obviously from a medical point of view)?
As I understand, there must be a significant change in health status, that cannot be explained through known scientific means. So for instance, if the placebo effect can explain the small improvement in health (for instance, through greater numbers of antibodies or white blood cells or whatever), it wouldn't qualify as a miracle. However, the placebo effect cannot repair a broken bone, for example, or make cancer vanish. If a patient didn't undergo any medical treatment between assessments and there is a complete and sustained recovery (last two points are made very clear in the 'miracle' guidelines set out by the Vatican, as I understand), then there is evidence that it was a miracle.
I kinda summed it up, she actually gave me a bigger explanation, but she insisted that that I should ask her that later. <.<
Fair enough. There are behavioural factors - for example, tolerance to gays in a country may make you more open to homosexual behaviour in yourself. But as predicted - the response was that they're all theories, and none can be proven.
Ok, I think arguing on internet forums is sufficiently difficult since there is no good way to convey a tone or emotion in your posts. It's too easy to mis-understand what everyone is saying, and things come out badly on both sides. I will leave it as it is.
Cop out ;) But nah, fair enough. This is what makes debating on internet forums intellectually challenging and 'fun' in a way, though. Just ask Skreeran ;)
Post by
Orranis
Faith healing does work, as we think, for certain diseases thanks to the positivism/placebo effect. However, what are the miracles then? Is every successful faith healing treatment considered a miracle (I mean, not obviously from a medical point of view)?
As I understand, there must be a significant change in health status, that cannot be explained through known scientific means. So for instance, if the placebo effect can explain the small improvement in health (for instance, through greater numbers of antibodies or white blood cells or whatever), it wouldn't qualify as a miracle. However, the placebo effect cannot repair a broken bone, for example, or make cancer vanish. If a patient didn't undergo any medical treatment between assessments and there is a complete and sustained recovery (last two points are made very clear in the 'miracle' guidelines set out by the Vatican, as I understand), then there is evidence that it was a miracle.
I'm inclined to disagree. First of all, the statement 'cannot be explained through scientific means' assumes a lot. Even if we can't apply the scientific knowledge we have now, not just haven't yet, to a situation, you can't say 'cannot be explained through scientific means' because that assumes that science is fixed. I'm not going to bull*!@# you with the scientific method shpeel, as I know that you know it just as well if not better than I do. But, I think, there's just as much possibility that we can scientifically prove empathy (through prayer) can aid the healing of physical conditions as that it's supernatural, if not more. If a placebo effect can improve physical conditions involving producing white blood cells, who's to say it can't help the splitting of flesh-cells for regenerating a hunk of flesh that a shark decided was his own?
In the specific encounter given, I could think of a great many thing that might effect it. Subtle environmental aspects that have a nullifying effect, or even the patients body kills off or becomes immune to the virus. After all, the body is it's own best medicine, everything we do is just to help it along. Cancer's would be more difficult to explain, though even if I saw a convincing 'prayer = cancer gone!' case that could be clinically demonstrated, I would still look for other explanations before rationalizing it with faith.
Post by
ExDementia
Cop out ;) But nah, fair enough. This is what makes debating on internet forums intellectually challenging and 'fun' in a way, though. Just ask Skreeran ;)
Lol, yeah just every post I make is taken the in just the wrong way ;) Plus you really can't change anyones mind about religion and politics :)
Post by
Squishalot
I'm inclined to disagree.
Wasn't trying to argue it, just painting how the Church defines a miracle, as Tartonga asked.
But, I think, there's just as much possibility that we can scientifically prove empathy (through prayer) can aid the healing of physical conditions as that it's supernatural, if not more. If a placebo effect can improve physical conditions involving producing white blood cells, who's to say it can't help the splitting of flesh-cells for regenerating a hunk of flesh that a shark decided was his own?
Interesting question. This is partly why psychology has to include elements of biological science, in order to assist with explaining such things, and essentially, drawing lines as to what the mind can and can't do.
The thing is, medical scientists and doctors currently state that the body can't regenerate a hunk of flesh. The scientific method would suggest that the evidence supports it - the cases where the body does regenerate are significantly lower in number (if any at all) than cases where the body doesn't regenerate.
The idea behind the identification of the miracle is that some line between 'science' and 'miracle' has to be drawn somewhere. If you can't explain why something has occurred through nature, it must be (by definition) either because you are ignorant, or because it has occurred outside of nature (i.e. supernatural).
Given that scientists have only identified a number of things that placebo can actually do (noting that white blood cells can't destroy cancerous ones, nor can they replace chunks of flesh overnight), you can fairly quickly draw a line between what is 'possible', what 'may be possible, but can't really be sure', and what is 'completely impossible, to 99.99999% confidence because the body just doesn't work that way'.
Miracles are only identified in the cases of the latter one, again, as I understand it.
In the specific encounter given, I could think of a great many thing that might effect it. Subtle environmental aspects that have a nullifying effect, or even the patients body kills off or becomes immune to the virus. After all, the body is it's own best medicine, everything we do is just to help it along. Cancer's would be more difficult to explain, though even if I saw a convincing 'prayer = cancer gone!' case that could be clinically demonstrated, I would still look for other explanations before rationalizing it with faith.
Which specific encounter? I've listed a couple - broken bones and cancer. The one in the book I linked on the previous page relates to a leukeamia sample - the doctor was asked to confirm what stage of leukeamia and chances of death based on medical information provided. Chance of death, she put, at 100% / guaranteed, basically, within a relatively short time frame. She didn't know that the test was for the purposes of identifying whether a miracle occurred.
The thing is, the Catholic Church doesn't try to canonise people. The identification of miracles is essentially the 'test' to determine whether to decree a dead person as a saint. The teams who look at the potential miracles are essentially "devils' advocates" of sorts who try to debunk the idea that it's a miracle by getting blind expert testimony from doctors, both secular and non-secular. They do look for other explanations. It's only once they exhaust all reasonable other explanations that they concede it's a miracle.
Imagine House (as in, the TV character). If you gave him a bunch of fatal patient data, and told him that the patient survived (and even produced the patient in front of him), he'd scratch his head and send his team out looking for potential reasons as to why the patient survived. At some point, he's going to give up because he's run out of possible explanations. That's the point at which the Church finally says "This was a miracle".
(Note that there are also a couple of other conditions too - there must be evidence of faith and prayers made to the intercessing icon as well. But that's less scientific, so they're not worth delving into here.)
Post by
821502
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
While I probably shouldn't delve back into the debate, I'm going to anyway. :P
The very concept of 'miracle' is presumptuous and fallacious. It presumes that there must be some sort of divinity or supernatural resource to intervene, and it couples that presumption with with an argument from ignorance (that if science cannot explain it, then a god must have done it, despite the concept that the body of scientific knowledge is always growing).
For instance, you mention that when the Vatican attempts to disprove something as a miracle (which is absolutely true; I've done some minor research into it, and the skepticism with which they approach potential 'miracles' is refreshing, if misguided in my opinion), it tries to rule out any potential scientific explanation for the process. But that statement is incomplete. What it is
really
doing is ruling out possible natural, scientific explanations for the process
where that ruling is limited by the extent of the current body of scientific knowledge
.
A few thousand years ago, lightning would have met that criteria. Yet we know now that lightning is both natural and explainable. If you showed a television to a person from 200 years ago, they would probably consider it supernatural (diabolical or divine, either one), but today we know that it's neither.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, from my point of view, the tests the Vatican does to rule something a miracle really should result in an answer of, "Wow - we don't know what caused that yet," rather than, "Hallelujah, God did it!"
Post by
Squishalot
It presumes that there must be some sort of divinity or supernatural resource to intervene
Uhhh, Catholic Church, remember?
, and it couples that presumption with with an argument from ignorance (that if science cannot explain it, then a god must have done it, despite the concept that the body of scientific knowledge is always growing).
No. This is where your argument falls over. For a documented miracle to be acknowledged, with the skepticism that you acknowledge exists, there has to be evidence that there was a 'cause' for God to have done it (intercessory prayers, for example). If only the effect is visible and there is no obvious cause (e.g. nobody prayed for the person, but they got better), that's not classified as a 'miracle' in the eyes of the Church.
What it is
really
doing is ruling out possible natural, scientific explanations for the process
where that ruling is limited by the extent of the current body of scientific knowledge
.
Yes, that's correct. I believe that point has been acknowledged in the book I cited earlier too. It's a criticism, certainly, but if you're going to be picky on that, you would have to conclude that ruling out
or ruling in
anything (e.g. effects of gravity, electromagnetic fields, radiation, FTL travel, etc.) is also limited by the extent of the current body of scientific knowledge.
Why is it that we can say that FTL travel is impossible but have to conclude that 'miraculous' cancer cures are potentially possible, when they're both impossible
based on our current scientific knowledge
? The scientific community is happy to make conclusions based on our current knowledge. Why shouldn't the Church?
Post by
Skreeran
Why is it that we can say that FTL travel is impossible but have to conclude that 'miraculous' cancer cures are potentially possible, when they're both impossible based on our current scientific knowledge? The scientific community is happy to make conclusions based on our current knowledge. Why shouldn't the Church?That's a good question. I can show you (well actually
I
can't, but a physicist could) mathematically show you that light speed
has
to be the fastest speed for relativity, which has a huge basis on theoretical and experimental evidence.
That's the problem with things like faith healing. There's no constancy. There's no math. There's no experiment (or the experiment do not support the hypothesis. See the
STEP
experiment.) There is only correlation, which as we should know, does not
necessarily
imply causation.
If someone could demonstrate someone being reliably faith healed in a setting where we could actually examine the process by which it occurs, it would be a revolutionary discovery, but I guarantee that such a thing will not happen. Whether "god moves in mysterious ways" or he just likes humans to remain ignorant of his methods, I would be willing to bet my entire life saving and public humiliation that no one will be able to show supernatural intervention in a laboratory setting.
Post by
Squishalot
Skree, all an experiment will ever demonstrate is correlation. 99% of experiments cannot conclude causation, it only implies causation due to correlation.
You can't show randomness in a laboratory setting, yet people insist that it exists. Why?
Edit:
mathematically show you that light speed
has
to be the fastest speed
for relativity
Key point bolded. It's a conclusion based on our current knowledge. Again though, why should the scientific community be allowed to make an assumption that our current knowledge is accurate, but the religious community not be allowed to?
It doesn't matter whether it's constant or repeatable, the key question in this instance is: "if something is demonstrated to be impossible according to science, and it occurs, is it natural or supernatural?"
Post by
Skreeran
Note that I said that correlation doesn't
necessarily
imply causation. That's why you perform experiments. Control the conditions as much as possible. Eliminate as much outside interference as you can. Set control groups. Be rigorous.
That never happens in faith healing. It's just "People prayed for them --> they got better --> science can't explain it --> God did it".
When you talk about randomness, I assume you mean "quantum randomness," or the fact that quantum particles fly around randomly without being acted upon by outside forces. Well, as it turns out, I've been studying quantum physics in my spare time. I don't know a lot relative to how much there is to know, but I'm confident I have a decent grasp on the basics. For one thing, I'm pretty confident that you
can
demonstrate quantum randomness in a lap, by way of a dual-slit experiment. The Feynman formula of sum over histories was developed to explain the behavior of quantum particles. While we're still trying to understand exactly how quantum particles work, we've established formulas that have been used predicatively with extreme accuracy. It's not just a guess or a suggestion, it's got mountains of evidence supporting it.
Key point bolded. It's a conclusion based on our current knowledge. Again though, why should the scientific community be allowed to make an assumption that our current knowledge is accurate, but the religious community not be allowed to?Because the scientific community is rigorous and provides substantial evidence for their theories. Again, our current knowledge isn't just a guess, or a conjecture, it's backed a great deal of mathematical and/or experimental evidence. Even if past theories have been proven false, we've improved our methods, compiled more evidence, and the things we know with certainty we can be 100% sure are true.
Science provides powerful evidence when it asserts something as true. If there is not powerful evidence, scientists are trained to remain skeptical about it. The religious community is trained to believe something in absence of evidence (like, say, Purgatory). When they do provide "evidence" it cannot stand up to testing. Confirmation bias can be a problem in science, like with String Theory, but theologians trying to be scientists practically define the phrase.
It doesn't matter whether it's constant or repeatable, the key question in this instance is: "if something is demonstrated to be impossible according to science, and it occurs, is it natural or supernatural?"I still don't believe anything defined as impossible according to our current models has been shown to occur. If it can, then our models should be changed, but at best all you can say is "
You can't explain that.
"
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.