[Al_U_Card]

When you consider the organization adjudicating the saint-hood, it puts the whole sordid mess into perspective. It used to be that a good saint helped get some more heathens to accept the Catholic (=universal) faith by being able to fete their "god" as part of the pantheon of saints. Converts count, apparently.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2015-December-20, 10:17, said:

That she performed a miracle at all is in itself a miracle - so that's two.

Consider that the Catholic Church believes in miracles in the first place.

[Al_U_Card]

barmar, on 2015-December-21, 10:51, said:

Consider that the Catholic Church believes in miracles in the first place.

If you define a miracle as something that they don't understand, it makes perfect sense...

[kenberg]

In college I took a course in the origins of Christianity from the poet John Berryman. He opined that since he had never seen a miracle he was not a believer in them, but he had more regard for those who did believe in them than for those who were positive that they could not happen. You can never know what these crazy poets will say next!

[barmar]

It sounds like his attitude is respect for people who have an open mind and are willing to entertain any belief, rather than those who are positive of any particular conclusion. He probably had more regard for agnostics than atheists, for example. But this goes the other way: those who are positive that there's a god and that miracles do occur deserve no more respect than those who are positive that there isn't one.

To those of us who believe deeply in science, a miracle is simply an oxymoron. If something happens that seems supernatural, it just means that we don't know everything about nature, so it's an opportunity to do more science to discover. So far, we have a pretty good track record in this regard. This is related to Clarke's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[gwnn]

In science, there's an ongoing debate about proton half-lifes. No proton decay has ever been observed, but the half-life is not said to be +infinity, but always given a lower bound. Currently, we know that the half-life is at least 10^34 years, but could be infinite. One would be excused to say "protons just don't decay." Certainly, I would respect a position of "protons definitely don't decay" more than "protons definitely decay." (do we all agree with this?) Do we always have to pretend that every leap of faith is equally vast?

{putting "militant atheist" cap on...}

The oldest trick in the apologists' playbook is (sorry, this should be a flowchart):

1. ask: "do you think miracles are absolutely impossible?"

1a: answer "yes, they are absolutely impossible." ----> "you are a fundamentalist atheist. you need a lot of faith for this!"
1b: answer "no, not absolutely impossible." ---> do some wordplay and pretend from now on that it's a 50/50 proposition whether a given phenomenon is "supernatural". From now on, if there is something interesting to explain, there is no telling whether it's a miracle or some other explanation.

One apologist book (I found "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" but there are probably more) called the principle "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as an "irrational anti-supernatural bias" which is an expression that still cracks me up. Also William Lane Craig says that the Christian claim is not "Jesus naturally rose from the dead", which would definitely be an extraordinary claim, but "Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead", the a priori odds of which is unknown so we should fall back to 50/50 or abandon all probabilistic arguments altogether. This is circular at best but it's still fun to listen to.

Another fun debate to watch was this one https://www.youtube....h?v=8G7U3K4iLAQ where Arif Ahmed constructs a very strong, multi-layered refutation of Jesus' resurrection and also warns against attributing supernatural causes to even factually established "miracles", and Habermas says "oh yes? but what about near-death experiences? huh?"

[Fluffy]

Happy birthday! , shall jesus dwell in all of you.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2015-December-25, 03:58, said:

Happy birthday! , shall jesus dwell in all of you.

Thanks but no thanks.

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2015-December-22, 10:15, said:

In science, there's an ongoing debate about proton half-lifes. No proton decay has ever been observed, but the half-life is not said to be +infinity, but always given a lower bound. Currently, we know that the half-life is at least 10^34 years, but could be infinite. One would be excused to say "protons just don't decay." Certainly, I would respect a position of "protons definitely don't decay" more than "protons definitely decay." (do we all agree with this?) Do we always have to pretend that every leap of faith is equally vast?

{putting "militant atheist" cap on...}

The oldest trick in the apologists' playbook is (sorry, this should be a flowchart):

1. ask: "do you think miracles are absolutely impossible?"

1a: answer "yes, they are absolutely impossible." ----> "you are a fundamentalist atheist. you need a lot of faith for this!"
1b: answer "no, not absolutely impossible." ---> do some wordplay and pretend from now on that it's a 50/50 proposition whether a given phenomenon is "supernatural". From now on, if there is something interesting to explain, there is no telling whether it's a miracle or some other explanation.

One apologist book (I found "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" but there are probably more) called the principle "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as an "irrational anti-supernatural bias" which is an expression that still cracks me up. Also William Lane Craig says that the Christian claim is not "Jesus naturally rose from the dead", which would definitely be an extraordinary claim, but "Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead", the a priori odds of which is unknown so we should fall back to 50/50 or abandon all probabilistic arguments altogether. This is circular at best but it's still fun to listen to.

Another fun debate to watch was this one https://www.youtube....h?v=8G7U3K4iLAQ where Arif Ahmed constructs a very strong, multi-layered refutation of Jesus' resurrection and also warns against attributing supernatural causes to even factually established "miracles", and Habermas says "oh yes? but what about near-death experiences? huh?"

Perhaps the best way out is to reject the question "Do you believe that miracles can happen?" and replace it with "Do you believe miracles do happen (or have happened)?". There would still be a question of just what qualifies as a miracle. I was once on defense against 7H holding the heart ace. I cashed it at trick 1 to preclude the miracle of the contract being made on a revoke. However it was a team game and, at the other table, the pressure of time kept them from playing that hand. I must be out of favor with at least the gods of bridge.

But I do not wish to be a Grinch. I enjoy Christmas, I like Santa, and I think we should try to do good rather than evil, however we come to that view. Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays, or Best Wishes, or whatever form you prefer, to all. There are days I dn't feel like arguing, and this is one of them.