Shake

Wellll, I do believe there is some merit in the body's self-healing ability that we don't fully understand. I also accept that the mind is (perhaps much) more powerful than we know. However, to talk of medical "miracles," I would agree with Mortal Wombat: These types of things would be front-page news, if true. And also, your assertion: We don't really put a lot of merit into what's said on those boards.

Walter_Mitty

<a href="http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/Hume%20on%20miracles.htm" target="_blank">Short and sweet</a>

See also:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/joe_nickell/miracles.html" target="_blank">Nickell</a>

Jamie_L

Gamblet:

A lot of what I would say has been said, but here's some extra:

The people you have spoken to don't have to be lying to be telling you things that aren't true. They may believe they are telling you the truth, but may be mistaken. As has been mentioned, human memory is notorious, not just for inaccuracy, but for it's ability to have memories altered without knowledge of the owner of those memories.

A good comparisson is people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs. Just because these people may have no reason to lie, and may seem completely believable, is not reason enough to believe UFOs are going around abducting people.

Check out the Skeptic's Dictionary's article on <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html" target="_blank">testimonials</a>.

The other thing is, "miraculous" healing events are usually not things one might consider impossible, but often things that appear so improbable as to be practically impossible. Yet, on a planet of 5 billion or so people, one can expect highly improbable things to happen regularlly. Additionally, most of those 5 billion people are religious. Religious people usually pray for someone when they are sick. So, it's no surprise that occasionally, someone experiences a highly improbable recovery after being prayed for.

With human perception and memory being what it is, a simple improvement in someone's ability to walk may, over time, be remembered as involving the cracking of bones during a church ceremony.

The really extreme things, like a leg growing back, have to really be questioned. Again, it's like the UFO story. Maybe you know someone who you think would never lie about such a thing. However, people experience delusions without realizing it. People back-project onto events and re-create their memories. And every now and then, someone who has no reason to lie about something does. And sometimes, if someone lives with a lie for a while, they begin to believe in it themselves.

My former best friend has back-constructed years of memories to create a mythical history in which my wife was horrible and mean to his family for years. All of my friends have confirmed my and my wife's belief that none of this is true, and that my wife never did these things he accuses her of. Yet he appears completely sincere in his belief. He has convinced other people of the truth of his story, because they feel he has no reason to lie to them.

Sometimes, people just say and believe things that aren't true. The strength of that belief can be very convincing, but it isn't really good evidence. The certainty of a person in their memories has been shown to have no correlation to the accuracy of their memories.

Listener beware.

Jamie

pz

Generating an impression of sincerity is the first skill of con men and fervent theists.

lpetrich

And why is the question of "where life came from" supposed to have any connection of religion? I ask that because you mentioned them alongside each other.

For my part, I prefer to address this question with science rather than with religion, just as I prefer to address the question of the cause of lightning with science rather than with religion.

Arrowman

(My emphasis)

Um - I realise it may just be that you have not chosen your words precisely enough, but would you care to be a little clearer about your belief system and where you are coming from?

She's an anonymous presence on a message board. She could be a troll, or a drooling lunatic for all you know. If she told you she had moved a coffee cup using the power of her mind, would you find that "credible"? Or do you apply a different standard to extraordinary claims which don't involve God?

Give me time and I'm sure I could get you direct testimony on this message board from people who have experienced some paranormal phenomenon or other. A testimony as sincere as the ones you have seen, no doubt. Would you give them "credibility"?

There is plenty of testimony on the internet for all sorts of whacky things. Not direct message board input, just published material. I'm sure you don't find all of that "credible". Why would you think words posted on a message board have more credibility than words posted on a web site for general consumption?

(Story to illustrate: A few years ago, a couple of sports talkback radio announcers were discussing a rumour about a prominent sports person which had circulated via e-mail. A caller was quite adamant that the story was credible - he had received it in an e-mail. The smarter of the two announcers said - "And if you found a crumpled, anonymous, hand written note stuffed in your letter box one night, you'd believe that too?" He wouldn't, of course - he just couldn't see the parallel. Think about that.)

That was the point of my list - you are applying a different standard to these claims because (a) they are about God, and not some other spooky paranormal thing and (b) they were on a message board and not just published for general consumption.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Psycho Economist

Mr. Love, I've seen those press releases, too; they came up in my research methods class (Psychology). They're pretty well done. One that's even better is a meta-analysis (statistical analysis of other data sets) that I can't find. That showed a way-better than chance result across a whole slew of studies. Indeed, as both articles say, there is only one real weakness and that is that we don't know enough about the personal characteristics of both praying participants and of the patient-participants. If they can get data sets that throw in the kitchen sink, and still defy naturalistic explanation...

Vorkosigan

Sounds like it is working just fine to me, since I had exactly the same reaction to the opening post. No real atheist talks like Gamblet. It would be nice if he just came out.

Vorkosigan