Jimmy

I also find it odd that many people that I’ve met who are amputees are very religious, and many of them are post-birth amputees who claim that their amputation (by accident, disease, etc.) brought them “closer to god”. I don’t judge them, as I’m a congenital amputee (I was born without my left hand), and I refuse to doubt that their renewed beliefs were a benefactor going towards their recovery, and an aid to their continued motivation to live.

Indeed, very true. An acquaintance of mine, a church organist, lost his arm in an auto accident a few years ago. He continues to play, give concerts and travels all over the country telling his story and giving glory to god because he has persevered through the tragedy.

As for me? I’m fine. I’ve dealt with bouts of depression because of it before, but I no longer suffer from those issues. There are far greater problems than my lack of a limb, and in todays society my refusal to believe in an ethereal being is the hardest thing to deal with due to the common misconceptions that are tied to disbelief in religion.

Glad to hear that your depression has eased, and that you didn’t need religion to cope. I’m encouraged by that, and I admire your attitude. Good luck!

You’re very welcome. I don’t know if you feel this way, but I’m curious if it’s not too offensive to ask this question: I would think it would be rather tough to have a physical handicap and believe that god does do miraculous healings, but never see you or someone like you get healed. Did/do you ever feel offended by people who tout all these “miracles” without addressing the fact that you could use a miracle but never seem to get one?

To be honest with you, those very claims are part of the myriad reasons why I “deconverted”. My mother told me about people offering to “heal” me. I also was told by many religious people that “god made you this way, you’re special”. These claims contradicted each other, as they both came from the same denomination of Christianity. It doesn’t hurt my feelings, but it hurts me to know that people would actually believe the garbage that pious people tell them about miracles, some to the point of refusing proven medical treatment of their ailments.

I also find it odd that many people that I’ve met who are amputees are very religious, and many of them are post-birth amputees who claim that their amputation (by accident, disease, etc.) brought them “closer to god”. I don’t judge them, as I’m a congenital amputee (I was born without my left hand), and I refuse to doubt that their renewed beliefs were a benefactor going towards their recovery, and an aid to their continued motivation to live.

As for me? I’m fine. I’ve dealt with bouts of depression because of it before, but I no longer suffer from those issues. There are far greater problems than my lack of a limb, and in todays society my refusal to believe in an ethereal being is the hardest thing to deal with due to the common misconceptions that are tied to disbelief in religion.

The “God of the Gap” is too often used to account for anything that doesn’t fit into pre-existing scientific explanations. Granted, though, that the scientific methodology requires repeatability to form a theory. One-time events will always be problematic.

The repeatability problem is exactly why my discussion here is not the same as the “God of the Gaps” argument used by the Intelligent Design folks (which I do not consider myself one of). IDers insert God into gaps that could still theoretically be filled through scientific inquiry. The whole point of miracles, however, is that they cannot be explained through scientific inquiry, precisely because of the repeatability problem.

Thankfully however, science is not the only tool in the toolbox. There are a methodologies for investigating one-time events – historical research for instance.

Let me get this straight. You’re saying that if God wanted to raise someone from the dead, he might not be able to repeat the feat?

No, I’m saying that while God could, the scientists can’t, and that is what is needed in order for the phenomenon to be studied by science.

ALL observations are considered for laws and theories. If Jesus were something other than a normal human being and could reliably do things like create additional bread and fish out of nothing, then it would be repeatable. Any time Jesus did (whatever it was he did) would result in (fish and bread creation.) The idea IS scientific. We just don’t have the observations readily available, just like we don’t have Higgs boson observations available…

If we have a well-documented observation that contradicts our current understanding of natural laws, then our current understanding is most likely wrong in some way. Look at it from a caused / uncaused distinction. If the Pioneer anomaly is caused, whether by gravitational forces or Jesus poking the satellites with his finger, then that relationship between cause and effect can be phrased as a law.

Okay, sure. I have no problem with that. Perhaps all miracles have natural explanations that we simply don’t understand yet. That works for me. As I said before, just because there is a natural explanation doesn’t make it less of a miracle for me. Many biblical miracles have natural explanations.

And I think I’ve said several times now that there’s no reason you shouldn’t try to scientifically evaluate miracles, if you can. But as you say, “we don’t have the observations readily available”, so until you figure out how to actually make controlled scientific observations of unpredictable, non-repeatable events, it still amounts to the same thing.

The major scientific study on intercessory prayer done in the past three or four years showed quite definitively that it had NO positive effect on patients’ medical outcomes. In fact, the people who were told they were being prayed for actually did slightly worse in their recoveries than either the group that got no intercessory prayer or the group that got prayer without realizing it.

That’s because they weren’t praying to Zeus, and that Zeus doesn’t answer prayers that are part of a scientific study. He’s like fairies, they turn invisible when you look at them.

Most doctors will tell you that regardless of treatment, most patients are better off in a situation in which they have strong emotional extrinsic support, as well as intrinsic motivation to overcome. I can’t point you to the study or cite it verbatim, but I’m sure its out there. Other studies involving prayer with no direct contact with the patient proved nothing in favor to the act of prayer, they just further proved the tendency for nature to take over and run its course.

The major scientific study on intercessory prayer done in the past three or four years showed quite definitively that it had NO positive effect on patients’ medical outcomes. In fact, the people who were told they were being prayed for actually did slightly worse in their recoveries than either the group that got no intercessory prayer or the group that got prayer without realizing it.

In terms of religion providing strong emotional and community support, I do believe there are studies backing that up, and backing up the fact that people involved in religious groups live longer. However, that just points up the fact that it’s important to stay connected socially with friends and relatives. It doesn’t speak to the truth of religious claims.

Thanks again Karen for your re-wording and elaboration of my stance

You’re very welcome. I don’t know if you feel this way, but I’m curious if it’s not too offensive to ask this question: I would think it would be rather tough to have a physical handicap and believe that god does do miraculous healings, but never see you or someone like you get healed. Did/do you ever feel offended by people who tout all these “miracles” without addressing the fact that you could use a miracle but never seem to get one?

All I am saying is that, if it is actually is a supernatural miracle, then it will likely not be repeatable, and therefore will probably not be sufficient to falsify an existing theory.

Let me get this straight. You’re saying that if God wanted to raise someone from the dead, he might not be able to repeat the feat? I don’t think that’s what you mean but it gets to the heart of what I’m getting at. If God can reliably cause an effect, the relationship between these causes and effects can be phrased as a law.

ALL observations are considered for laws and theories. If Jesus were something other than a normal human being and could reliably do things like create additional bread and fish out of nothing, then it would be repeatable. Any time Jesus did (whatever it was he did) would result in (fish and bread creation.) The idea IS scientific. We just don’t have the observations readily available, just like we don’t have Higgs boson observations available.

We are limited in our observations to the extent that a hypothetical God would wish us to be, but so what? We are limited in our observations of a Higgs boson, if there is such a thing, but it doesn’t get set aside and treated differently. This whole idea of creating a miracle / non-miracle or natural / supernatural distinction is arbitrary and invented out of air. It does nothing to help our investigations to arrive at a better understanding. Maybe it makes some sort of sense if you adopt a mental model of reality as having two levels from a young age?

And again, my point is not to argue whether or not supernatural miracles ever actually do happen. My point is simply to say that if they do, then science cannot answer the question of whether they are one-time exceptions to the natural order (i.e. supernatural miracles) or simply researcher errors.

If we have a well-documented observation that contradicts our current understanding of natural laws, then our current understanding is most likely wrong in some way. Look at it from a caused / uncaused distinction. If the Pioneer anomaly is caused, whether by gravitational forces or Jesus poking the satellites with his finger, then that relationship between cause and effect can be phrased as a law.

There are some questions that science just isn’t equipped to answer. It’s okay to sometimes say “we just don’t know”.

Science says that all the time.

That assumption only works if you happen to think that the scientific method is the only legitimate way of understanding every aspect of the world and human existence. That seems like a pretty naive epistemology, IMHO. I thought that kind of scientific positivism went out about 40-50 years ago. Again, statements like that are why I find it hard to believe that Harris actually has a degree in Philosophy from Stanford.

No, we haven’t gone totally back to the dark ages you love so much, there are still lots of sensible people in the world that take theology, astrology, and alchemy for the bullshit that they are, there’s where the real naivity is. Harris is a rationalist, but you probably wouldn’t know much about that.

Science is good for answering questions that easily conform to the requirements of the scientific method. Other methods are useful for answering other kinds of questions (questions of history for example). If religion makes certain scientific claims, then certainly those can can be evaluated by science (the Creationist claims about the age and development of the universe for instance); but Harris is rather uninformed if he thinks that all (or even most) religious claims are the kinds of things that can be studied by the scientific method.

Other methods like entrails, or the stuff you pull out of your backside. Lots of people think the Sun orbits the Earth, there’s millions of religious people who have misguided religious beliefs that make scientific claims. Harris didn’t say most religious claims can be studied by the scientific method, but you don’t seem to take him up on the points he actually makes.

As I’ve argued above, for instance, even miracles aren’t really good candidates since they are unrepeatable historical events. In these cases I’d suggest that the historical method, rather than the scientific method, is the best tool for evaluating such claims. Which comes back to J.J. Ramsey’s point that a better reason for disbelieving in miracle claims is not because they could not possibly happen (they could), but because there is often not enough evidence that they did happen (which is a historical criterion).

Harris’s point is exactly that there is not any legitimate evidence that they did happen. The historical method takes science, our current understanding of nature, to evaluate the crediblity of claims. If you accept supernaturalism anything goes, as Harris says, it’s a slippery slope that leads to absurdity. Looks like you’ve already been skiing down there.