obligatory groan :smack: 
Oh, I absolutely believe that there have been unexplained healings, just as I absolutely believe in UFOs. It would be absurd to suggest that every single healing has been explained, or that every single flying object has been identified.
What I don’t believe is that unexplained healing=the remotest evidence of miraculous healing, or that UFO=evidence of aliens. Indeed, if it’s miraculous, then it’s explained.
Your mileage may vary, but I quite enjoy having a medical plan that doesn’t require me to die before I receive benefits.
So you say. Some of them tell me they do. How am I to judge whose claims are more accurate?
Almost, but not quite. What they do is, they say, “If X is true, then Y will happen when I perform this experiment. If Y doesn’t happen, then X isn’t true. If Y does happen, that doesn’t necessarily prove X is true, but it lends a little support to X.” Then they perform the experiment.
So yes, they start with a guess (X), but at no point do they assume its veracity.
An example. I propose that invisible monkeys living in my desk want all pencils to be touching the top of the desk. I propose an experiment: “If these supernatural monkeys exist, then when I hold my pencil above my desk, as soon as I let go of my pencil, it’ll move rapidly to my desktop.”
I perform the experiment. If the pencil hovers in midair, then I’ve disproven my hypothesis (roughly speaking): there are no invisible monkeys in my desk.
Fortunately, the pencil moves directly to my desktop. Success!
Have I proven the existence of invisible monkeys in my desk? No: I’ve given a small amount of support to the hypothesis. It’s time for a new experiment.
This time, I hold the pencil under my desk and drop it. The hypothesis suggests that the pencil will move rapidly to my desktop. But it doesn’t: it drops to the floor. My hypothesis about invisible monkeys who want all pencils to be touching the top of my desk clearly needs work.
Again, at no point in the process do I, the (monkey-obsessed) scientist, assume the validity of my hypothesis: the entire point is to test it.
That said, if I do a thousand different tests for every aspect of my hypothesis, and every single time I test, “Y” (whatever it is in each case) occurs, then those little bits of support for my hypothesis start to add up. The fact that I’m never able to falsify the hypothesis starts becoming pretty significant, to the point that I may start to assume the explanatory theory behind the hypothesis when I conduct future experiments.
Someone else can probably explain it better than I can, but I hope the monkeys help.
Daniel
I thought I remembered Isaac Asimov saying something to the effect, but It was not quite the same thing. I feel I should post it anyway.
THE DRAGON IN MY GARAGE
“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”
You look inside the garage and see no dragon.
“I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon”
You propose spreading flour on the floor to capture the footprints.
“Good idea - but this dragon floats in the air”
Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless”
You’ll spray paint the dragon and make her visible.
“Except, she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint wont stick”
And so on, I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work. Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal floating dragon that spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are verdically worthless.
- Carl Sagan, “The Demon Haunted World”, p.160
So is that Isaac Asimov or Carl Sagan?
In that incident, if someone is trying to get me to believe in their dragon, after the “floating in midair” stage, I’ll say, “Look, buddy. Tell me what makes you believe this dragon exists, and tell me everything you know about it, and then I’ll take a look.”
As you state, at some point there’s no difference between what they’re describing and no dragon at all. I’ve found that the most convincing proofs for the existence of “God” suffer from the same problem: namely, I see no difference between the God they describe and no God at all.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I see your point. Yet if an unexplained healing defies everthing medical science tells us, then it at least indicates that there is something occuring beyond our ability to measure and explain. I thought one of the definitions of miraculous was unexplainable by accepted means.
Oh No, you don’t die. You merely get a new outfit. Curtom made for you. Nothing off the rack. The Holy One has class.
By going to the source.
Monkeys always help. It was helpful Still, when they propose for the sake of the experiment, that X is true, that is in some way, assumeing X is true. It isn’t their final conclusion about X. The purpose is to discover the truth about the nature of X. As you gather more evidence, the number of possible conclusions diminish.
The search for truth in the spiritual arena is much the same, X being God is.
Keep in mind we made up the name fire. What we call fire would have the same qualities if we called it ice or chair.
I thought it was Asimov, then when I found it was actually Sagan, I forgot to change my post. Sorry.
I beleve that cosmosdan’s post calls for the use of the parable of Hank, but it is too long to post here, so here is a link to the version that does not contain strong language. http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.mv
That’s true. The question, then, is which specific incidences defy everything medical science tells us? Although I surely believe in unexplained healings, I’ve not heard of healings that have been closely examined by rigorous scientists and found anomalous. Third-hand accounts from friends are not terribly convincing, as I’m sure you’ll agree.
Heh. I’ll believe that when I see it.
That assumes the question, though.
Me: I have every bit as much access to the President as Karl Rove has!
Karl: In your dreams, hippie.
Me: No, I really do! He speaks to me telepathically, and he TOLD me I have as much access as you do!
You can see how my supporting my claim in that manner isn’t terribly convincing?
Hmm…I think we disagree on what it means to “assume,” but I’m not going to argue about semantics, as long as we agree on the substance.
Daniel
So if I get a hangnail, and I ask my doctor why I got it, and he just shrugs, that’s evidence of God? 'Cause I think that’s what you’re saying.
Yes, you will
I do see. Maybe going to the source, would be better phrased as conducting your own set of experiments. Gandhi, Buddha, Jesus, and the Pope are scientists in the spiritual arena. All have some similarities and some diffirences in their conclusions about the qualities of X. I could decide without investigation that they are all wrong. I certainly wouldn’t want to let some ingnorent superstitious lout tell me what the results mean. I could try to recreate their experiments and draw my own conclusions about which properties of X they were correct on.
Now youv’e got it. Alphabetical, Buddha is first, so to do so you must go and sit under a tree for three days.
No, there’s quite a difference between a doctor too lazy to explain and something that defies medical science. Even if science doesn’t know what causes hangnails it’s not the same. I’m talking about someone who has a serious illness which according to current medical knowledge will progress in a certain fashion. For reasons that defy current medical knowledge that person is healed.
As mentioned before. You may not call this evidence of God. It is evidence of some force or factor we don’t understand.
Ah. In that case, I’ve gone to the source, and doing so has led me to believe that “God” is not especially likely or plausible. Problem solved!
I’m curious why, after all this talk about medical miracles, you’ve not given us an example.
Daniel
Thats funny. Thanks for posting it. I also enjoyed the link to Hankisms of particular religions.
Many things once explained by superstition were based on an actual occurance and/or phenomenon that was beyond scientific ability to explain at the time.
Thats my feeling about God. It doesn’t matter if you use the term God, the Force, Universal Intelligence, Cosmic energy or Hank. If some see Michael Angelo’s version of God as fairly accurate I think thats unfortuante and doesn’t advance the search for truth.
The logical reasonable mind will examine the available evidence and draw some conclusions about what is or could be reality. We couldn’t detect radio waves years ago yet they were just as real then as now.
I think indivuduals have the ability to experience this unseen force.
Try to prove the existance of color to someone who has been blind from birth.
It is debateable which scientific breakthroughs have actually been a boon to mankind. We still continue our quest for knowledge. If seeking the truth about God has the potential to improve our quality of life and heal us on a level that medical science cannot, it’s worth doing.
I maintain that science and religion are both the search for truth about how the universe really is. Different labs. Same goal. One problem seems to be that people in both areas seem to think what we “know” now is it.
[QUOTE]
And the scientists I’ve mentioned strongly disagree with you. I’ll continue with my own research and conclusions. Thanks for the input. The issue remains open.
You need only read my other posts to satisfy your curiousity.
The trouble with regarding religious figures as scientists is that their results/hypotheses/conclusions/assertions don’t seem to be falsified by any amount of failed attempt at replication.
In ordinary science, your hypothesis crumbles when lots of others try your experiments and do not observe the startling results you claim to have observed; in religion, there’s nearly always an arbitrary (and very often ad-hoc) “Ah!, yes, but…” explanation.
Good point. Thats where logic and reason come in. Is the explanation plausible in any way and how does it fit with other research being done.
the proposition that God wrote the Bible doesn’t hold up to the evidence we have available or logic and reason.
In science there may be several theories to explain something as yet unknown.
If a scientist chooses to embrace a theory as fact without sufficient evidence he betrays his comittment to the truth and scientific principles. Ultimately we each make a judgement call on what we believe to be true.
Do you suppose we could find an example of something widely accepted as scientific fact at one point and then shown to be false or very incomplete in another age?
one problem is that becuase we are individuals and given the internal nature of the spiritual quest it is difficult to reproduce someone elses expiriments.
The principle is still sound.
Plausibility is not the basis of science; it’s falsifiability - the theory of gravity is such that there are many simple ways in which it could be proven incorrect; repeated failure to prove it incorrect is a significant part of what establishes it as sound and reliable.
I don’t know, but it sounds like maybe you have something in mind? Remember we’re talking about wide* scientific* acceptance.
Which scientists–Jesus and the Pope? Can you name names? And what do they disagree with me on: do they disagree that I’ve checked the source for myself and found nothing there, or do they disagree that there’s nothing there? What specific predictive hypotheses have these scientists proposed, and what replicable results have they achieved? How have they accounted for observer bias?
On the contrary: I’ve read them, and the best answer my curiosity can get is that you have no specific cases, but rather are referring to accounts that don’t quite meet the Urban Legend standard of proof. That’s not a very satisfying answer. Can you name names, give dates, show me articles in which scientists have analyzed healings?
Because if these healings happened, they certainly happened on a specific date at a specific location to a specific person.
Daniel
Left Hand of Dorkness
Due respect, but I’m not sure that, on the whole, you’re making reasonable demands. Bear with me…
Suppose someone were to make the assertion that a spinal epidural injection of certain kinds of steroids has been shown to relieve inflammation of the sciatic nerve in 80% of cases. If that were an assertion that you doubted, I would not want you demanding names and addresses of people cured by the process because I’m one of them. You’re talking about people here. Articles from scientists or medical doctors is an okay demand, but those are not going to give you names and phone numbers either. And rightly so. But in addition, I think that you should state up front just exactly what would satisfy your demand for scientific analysis or testimony. Are statements made by medical doctors sufficient, or do you require peer reviewed journal articles? Because if it is the latter, then surely you must realize that some political and non-scientific consideration often goes into deciding who will be published and who will not. And that’s not to mention the fact that access to peer reviewed journals is far from readily available to the general public, including yourself. It doesn’t seem to be fair that you demand a peer-reviewed citation for a healing when you yourself are satisfied to link someone demanding evidence for speciation to a web site like Talk Origins