Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on September 04, 2016, 10:23:34 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Mother Teresa is now Saint Teresa of Calcutta. Great! Well deserved.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Not deserved at all. A fraud.
Believed in keeping the poor, poor.
Her clinics were squalid despite receiving huge amounts of cash, yet when she needed treatment off to the best of California.
What a Saint. ::)
-
There are so many bad stories about her clinics, lack of hygiene (e.g. needles re-used without being sterilized), lack of pain relief. It's almost as if she welcomed death, not for herself, but for others. I suppose it illustrates some of the weirder aspects of Christianity, the role of suffering as holiness, for example. I like some saints, but she is not my cup of tea.
-
Have a look at Chris Hitchens YouTube content about Teresa.
ippy
-
Of course, given that to become a saint, you need a couple of miracles under your belt, then this is positive proof for all that there are miracles. After all the Catholic Church must have a proper method for establishing this.
-
Have a look at Chris Hitchens YouTube content about Teresa.
ippy
And while you're at it have a look at Jim Bean's and Johnny Walker's youtube content on Chris Hitchens.
-
And while you're at it have a look at Jim Bean's and Johnny Walker's youtube content on Chris Hitchens.
I suppose nary a drop has passed your lips?
-
Which Teresa are we talking about here;
Teresa of Calcutta or Theresa de Compostaconservitaymanureybrexita ?
-
Of course, given that to become a saint, you need a couple of miracles under your belt, then this is positive proof for all that there are miracles.
What about the universe coming into being either by popping up out of nothing or being eternal and self perturbed?
-
Which Teresa are we talking about here;
Teresa of Calcutta or Theresa de Compostaconservitaymanureybrexita ?
Teresa of Calcutta, Vlad. I would have thought that was obvious.
She was certainly a controversial figure, someone who started something marvellous. She was in charge for far too long and came to believe she was above reproach and could do no wrong.
Let that be a lesson to us all, no-one should be in such a powerful position for too long.
I don't believe it is at all appropriate for her to be canonised which does not take away from the good she did in the early days. However I am strongly against canonisation anyway so it figures. There are other ways to honour people without making them into 'Saints' (capital S).
-
Hi everyone,
Mother Teresa is now Saint Teresa of Calcutta. Great! Well deserved.
Cheers.
Sriram
MT was certainly no saint. She was quite happy to let people die in agony without pain relief. Years ago I met someone who had worked with her, they didn't think much of the woman at all!
-
What about the universe coming into being either by popping up out of nothing or being eternal and self perturbed?
Or one man using all of the straw in the universe in one post?
-
CH's famous comment about her was that she loved poverty, not the poor.
-
I suppose it's OK to love poverty for yourself though it seems a bit masochistic to me. She made a choice to live in poverty (with massive security blanket), she could have left it behind at any time; most don't have such choice and poverty is one helluva pain. They spend all their time trying to ensure their offspring are better off, quite right too.
How can someone "love poverty" and not love the poor?
-
I suppose it's OK to love poverty for yourself though it seems a bit masochistic to me. She made a choice to live in poverty (with massive security blanket), she could have left it behind at any time; most don't have such choice and poverty is one helluva pain. They spend all their time trying to ensure their offspring are better off, quite right too.
How can someone "love poverty" and not love the poor?
How can one love homosexuals and not love homosexuality?
-
It's a sharp comment (loving poverty not the poor), but I thought the same is true of suffering. Did she love suffering in others, and therefore didn't do her best to alleviate it? That's been an accusation leveled by people who worked with her. It's when Christianity sinks into sadism.
-
How can one love homosexuals and not love homosexuality?
Ooo-er NS, never thought of it like that. Well done.
Far too many generalisations really. I wonder if Mother Teresa ever actually said she loved poverty? She probably said something like it held no terror for her.
When it came to poor people she undoubtedly loved (or liked) some, and was less keen on others; as human beings we all meet people with whom we gel and others we're not so fond of, but have to rise above personal feelings and treat everyone fairly. M Teresa was no different.
-
Ooo-er NS, never thought of it like that. Well done.
Far too many generalisations really. I wonder if Mother Teresa ever actually said she loved poverty? She probably said something like it held no terror for her.
It's not about her words, it is about her actions. The point of the sound bite is that she thought that being poor is what Jesus wanted and and poor people were in some sense better placed for the next life, so she saw poverty as a virtue rather than something to be alleviated. Similar accusations have been levelled at her with respect to suffering, so her terminally ill patients didn't get modern pain relief.
-
It's a great pity no-one brought her up to date, she was stuck in a time warp theologically. What Catholics call, "A right winger".
-
Have you ever dosed-off while listening to the radio and find that when you wake-up everything is mixed-up? I fell asleep during yesterdays news and awoke convinced that the Pope had made Therese May a saint :o
-
Mother Teresa on Poverty
Mother Teresa Quotes. "We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty."
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For all the people who criticise her work, she still did much more for the poor in India than many of them.
What did Christopher Hitchens ever do for the poor of India? He made money out of it by attacking Mother Teresa.
He sold books, did the money go to help the poor there?
He made money out of writing about the poor, I don't see that he put his hand in his own pocket.
The man was a malicious drunk, he made money by slagging other's off.
Mother Teresa at her worst did more than he ever did.
Most people do far less for the poor in India, than Mother Teresa.
-
How my loathing of Mother Teresa turned to admiration
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/04/mother-teresa-admiration-sainthood-dying-kolkata
From someone who met her.
Personally I'm not into saints and I find the woman on the weird side.
However most of us are not there to pick up nearly dead people from the streets and give them privacy and dignity, let alone administer pain relief.
Until we are, I feel it's inappropriate to be so hate filled over this nun.
She was there for those people, we aren't.
We just talk, or stick money in a charity box and walk away.
If we felt those people's pain we would be there for them.
We are not!
Something to bear in mind.
Being able to die off the streets is more than most of us actually offer those people, so who are we to criticise.
If we don't like the way Catholics help people, then it's up to us to organise an alternative.
But it didn't happen, did it?
No we just blamed this nun.
-
Mother Teresa at her worst did more than he ever did.
Mother Teresa, at her worst, tortured terminally ill patients. I'm pretty sure Christopher Hitchens never did anything that bad and he would probably argue that putting a stop to the things she did would have been better than letting her carry on and hence his book was an attempt to help the poor.
-
Mother Teresa, at her worst, tortured terminally ill patients. I'm pretty sure Christopher Hitchens never did anything that bad and he would probably argue that putting a stop to the things she did would have been better than letting her carry on and hence his book was an attempt to help the poor.
She arranged for nearly dead people to be taken off the street, Christopher Hitchins didn't.
As far as I am aware none of the proceeds of his books went to the poor in India.
He didn't benefit them in any way other than to malign those trying to help and making people desert the very poor and sick in India.
Some help is better than none.
Criticise the way it was done, by all means, but bear it in mind that the Catholics were the ones helping no one else was interested.
Christopher Hitches hasn't helped anyone, certainly not the very poor in India.
Spreading hatred doesn't help.
No one else bothered with any of these dying people.
That's the truth of it!
-
She arranged for nearly dead people to be taken off the street, Christopher Hitchins didn't.
She denied them basic pain relief.
Some help is better than none.
There's an argument that the high profile nature of her charity denied funds to other more humane charities.
-
She denied them basic pain relief.
There's an argument that the high profile nature of het charity denied funds to other more humane charities.
Society denied them basic pain relief by letting them die on the streets, they were thought of as that little.
No one helped these people, even a little bit.
Where were the more humane Charities?.
What did they do?
-
MT appeared to think suffering was good for the mythical soul, anyone thinking like that is very SICK, imo.
-
Society denied them basic pain relief by letting them die on the streets, they were thought of as that little.
Did you read the bit about the more humane charities not getting a look-in in Calcutta because of Mother Teresa?
She had the opportunity to reduce the suffering of people under her care and she didn't take it through some misguided belief that their suffering was good for them.
The fact that there are other people in this world that did nothing does not mitigate her actions.
-
I remember seeing a Christopher Hitchens programme devoted to this very subject, possibly on Channel 4, more than twenty years ago. It certainly gave me food for thought. However it was followed up by a programme featuring people who felt quite the opposite - not, I must say, blind worshippers at the feet of M Teresa but some who had been involved in her work. At the church I used to attend there was a Mother Teresa group who collected baby and small children's clothes (never white or man made fibre because of culture/heat), and raised funds for her organisation by the usual methods, table sales and coffee things. I wasn't involved in that but there were some who went to India to see the work and help out, mainly a centre for orphaned infants, who were quite impressed.
India honoured her, why did they do that if her mission was a complete failure? Quite honestly I don't know what to think, neither do I care much (apart from my negative view of canonisation generally), now she has been dead for such a long time and her organisation is administered by people with more up to date ethos and practice.
-
Did you read the bit about the more humane charities not getting a look-in in Calcutta because of Mother Teresa?
She had the opportunity to reduce the suffering of people under her care and she didn't take it through some misguided belief that their suffering was good for them.
The fact that there are other people in this world that did nothing does not mitigate her actions.
No but even reading critical reports such as this one, that is very critical it's obvious pills of some sort are being given to the dying. It was critical quite rightly in how they were given.
http://www.wanderingearl.com/volunteering-at-mother-teresas-home-for-the-dying/
Abuse of the vunerable is something that can happen in our care homes in the UK.
They don't have the same controls in India for charities.
What it does do is make me question the claim that no pain relief was given at the instruction of Mother Teresa.
Obviously it is being given, if it is being criticised in such a way. So is it true or not? Obviously it isn't IMO.
I wonder if Christopher Hitchens lied, after all, it would sell more books to knock someone like Mother Teresa off her pedestal.
I know reporters lie, I've caught them at it and complained.
Their answer is always
" well our reporter only saw one toilet ( add lie of choice)......."
I wouldn't trust Christopher Hitchens account of Mother Teresa for the same reason I doubt what reporters write.
They make money out of lying and exaggerating the truth. ( Fox News and Birmingham uk being a no go zone for white non Muslims according to their experts is a prime example)
Christopher Hitchens is as about as trustworthy as David Icke IMO, they are both out to promote their books and make money.
I don't doubt that the Calcutta homes could be considerably improved, but Mother Teresa stopping dying people getting pain relief?
I think he made that up.
One of those conspiracy theorists IMO.
All to sell books.
-
Christopher Hitchens is as about as trustworthy as David Icke IMO, they are both out to promote their books and make money.
And J K Rowlings and Richard Dawkins and Nelson Mandella? Everybody who writes a book and promotes it is equally untrustworthy are they?
I don't doubt that the Calcutta homes could be considerably improved, but Mother Teresa stopping dying people getting pain relief?
Yes.
I think he made that up.
[/quote]
-
And J K Rowlings and Richard Dawkins and Nelson Mandella? Everybody who writes a book and promotes it is equally untrustworthy are they?
Yes.
I think he made that up.
J k Rowling writes fantasy and is honest enough to label it as such.
Richard Dawkings writes his from a perspective of a professor of biology and it is his opinion, you can put up a counter argument if you wish. In fact I suspect he would support someone's sincere attempt to do so, more than just blindly accepting what he says ( which seems to be much of his objection that people just blindly believe what they are told). I think he would encourage someone to challenge his ideas, not just blindly accept them.
Nelson Mandela I suspect wrote about his own experiences.
None of those writers compare to Christopher Hitchins, who appears to have been a spiteful drunk with an agenda.
jK Rowling writes fantasy
r Dawkins writes as a biology professor
Nelson Mandella as someone who was persecuted his own experience.
Christopher Hitchens opinionated nobody who drank and took nasty swipes at anyone famous who was liked by the public ranging from Princess Diana, Mother Teresa and a few others.
-
J k Rowling writes fantasy and is honest enough to label it as such.
Richard Dawkings writes his from a perspective of a professor of biology and it is his opinion, you can put up a counter argument if you wish. In fact I suspect he would support someone's sincere attempt to do so, more than just blindly accepting what he says ( which seems to be much of his objection that people just blindly believe what they are told). I think he would encourage someone to challenge his ideas, not just blindly accept them.
Nelson Mandela I suspect wrote about his own experiences.
None of those writers compare to Christopher Hitchins, who appears to have been a spiteful drunk with an agenda.
jK Rowling writes fantasy
r Dawkins writes as a biology professor
Nelson Mandella as someone who was persecuted his own experience.
But they all promote their own books and it is this that you claimed makes them as untrustworthy as David Icke.
Christopher Hitchens opinionated nobody
Now you are throwing insults around. Do you have any substantive points?
-
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html
-
But they all promote their own books and it is this that you claimed makes them as untrustworthy as David Icke.
Now you are throwing insults around. Do you have any substantive points?
Yes I've made my substantive points, you chose to ignore them.
its not the promoting of books that makes them dishonest, but whether they are spreading untruths to promote their books.
jK Rowling has never promoted her book as being reality and it hasn't hurt or been aimed at a living person.
Richard Dawkins promotes his book but it is his opinion, he attacks religion and religious ideas but doesn't make it personal
Christopher Hitchins is into character assassination, and it's promoting that in the way he did , that makes him dishonest. He is a disher of dirt.
None of the others you mention go in for the sort of nasty character assassination that Christopher Hitchins does.
Can you really not see the difference?
He's a dirt disher!
That's how he sold his books, by dishing up the dirt on anyone who was well known.
That's why I don't trust what he writes, because his agenda was to character assassinate anyone he thought was a target.
To make money! And make a name for himself.
None of the other authors you mention stoop that low.
Christopher Hitchens made a living out of character assassination, he's the lowest of the low IMO.
He belongs on the bookshelf alongside David Icke for making money by writing books aimed at making money by being malicious about other people.
It wasn't just Mother Teresa he attacked, was it?
He was a disher of dirt of the worst sort.
-
While Hitchens could be vicious in his opinion of many people the idea that he was a muck raking journalist dedicated to writing character assassinations shows ignorance of his writings, see below for bibliography. Further that it is a personal attack on someone doesn't make it wrong.
The ongoing ad hominem on a number of posts on here about his drinking is both a fallacy and a laughable piece of hypocrisy from anyone complaining that he carried out character assainations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens_bibliography
-
Hitchens was extremely arrogant, pompous and ill mannered. He had no need to be like that to get his points across but that was obviously his nature/nurture. I formed my opinion having seen him in discussion many times on youtube or TV and I have no anti-Hitchens agenda. That was just how he was. He could have learned a thing or two from forum posters, ie attack the idea, not the poster (Ha!).
Years ago, Hitchens struck me as someone who would find out something negative about an individual and then go all out to dig up more of the same or worse. I was merely an impartial observer and it mattered not at all to me one way or the other though I found him uncomfortable to watch and hear, regardless of subject matter.
Seb, thanks for that link to a really good, balanced article. Some mixture! What I expected really.
-
While Hitchens could be vicious in his opinion of many people the idea that he was a muck raking journalist dedicated to writing character assassinations shows ignorance of his writings, see below for bibliography. Further that it is a personal attack on someone doesn't make it wrong.
The ongoing ad hominem on a number of posts on here about his drinking is both a fallacy and a laughable piece of hypocrisy from anyone complaining that he carried out character assainations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens_bibliography
Thanks for the laugh, nearly sane.
You must have searched very hard to have found such an impossibly small bibliography that said nothing negative about him or gave the absolute minimum of information. I've never seen such a small article.
A personal attack on someone is always wrong IMO, especially from someone in the media who is abusing their position.
He was a muck raking journalist.
Yes I'm doing that, saying unpleasant things about him, because I don't like the undeserved ( IMO) acclaim he is given.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
That one is a bit more informative!
He was also a defender of holocaust deniers and Nazis
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114066518886080999
I don't have to like the man, and I don't.
Unfortunately he has been put on that very same pedestal he spent so much of his time knocking others off.
He came out and supported a Nazi.
https://www.rt.com/uk/310878-holocaust-denier-irving-speaks/
He's scum! IMO.
You can tell a lot about a person by who they choose to associate with.
If he was a decent person and not some scumbag, he wouldn't have done that.
I wouldn't trust any criticism he made about others, given his judgment on holocaust deniers and Nazis.
The man was a pompous ass!
-
Thanks for the laugh, nearly sane.
You must have searched very hard to have found such an impossibly small bibliography that said nothing negative about him or gave the absolute minimum of information. I've never seen such a small article.
A personal attack on someone is always wrong IMO, especially from someone in the media who is abusing their position.
He was a muck raking journalist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
That one is a bit more informative!
He was also a defender of holocaust deniers and Nazis
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114066518886080999
I don't have to like the man, and I don't.
Unfortunately he has been put on that very same pedestal he spent so much of his time knocking others off.
You appear not to know what a bibliography is. You post a link which covers many of the other pieces of writing and then ignore that. You make a further ad hominem, and you ignore your own hypocrisy in having used his drinking as a personal attack.
-
Thanks for the laugh, nearly sane.
You must have searched very hard to have found such an impossibly small bibliography that said nothing negative about him or gave the absolute minimum of information. I've never seen such a small article.
A personal attack on someone is always wrong IMO, especially from someone in the media who is abusing their position.
He was a muck raking journalist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
That one is a bit more informative!
He was also a defender of holocaust deniers and Nazis
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114066518886080999
I don't have to like the man, and I don't.
Unfortunately he has been put on that very same pedestal he spent so much of his time knocking others off.
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean that he is necessarily wrong.
But lets shift the focus off Hitchens for a while.
There are plenty of others who have been highly critical of her over the years. Perhaps the most notable being Aroup Chatterjee, a doctor who actually worked for her organisation and has been highly critical of her work particularly that she exaggerated the work she did and also that she raised huge amounts of money, most of which didn't seem to be channeled into helping the poor.
Also the journalist Tariq Ali and Robin Fox, who was editor of the leading medical journal The Lancet who was scathing about the quality of health care he witnessed at her organisation. He reported that there weren't routinely medically qualified staff available and 'diagnoses' were left to untrained staff, resulting in patients with curable diseases being diagnosed as dying (which of course they ultimately did through lack of basic treatment. Also lack of analgesics meaning patients suffered from unnecessary pain, and appalling basic hygiene - notable re-using syringe needles which hadn't been sterilised, but merely washed in warm water. The result being transmission of infections.
Now if it was the case that she was running her organisations on a shoestring, you might forgive her from being able to provide such basic care. But she wasn't, she was raking in millions.
-
Just because you don't like him doesn't mean that he is necessarily wrong.
But lets shift the focus off Hitchens for a while.
There are plenty of others who have been highly critical of her over the years. Perhaps the most notable being Aroup Chatterjee, a doctor who actually worked for her organisation and has been highly critical of her work particularly that she exaggerated the work she did and also that she raised huge amounts of money, most of which didn't seem to be channeled into helping the poor.
Also the journalist Tariq Ali and Robin Fox, who was editor of the leading medical journal The Lancet who was scathing about the quality of health care he witnessed at her organisation. He reported that there weren't routinely medically qualified staff available and 'diagnoses' were left to untrained staff, resulting in patients with curable diseases being diagnosed as dying (which of course they ultimately did through lack of basic treatment. Also lack of analgesics meaning patients suffered from unnecessary pain, and appalling basic hygiene - notable re-using syringe needles which hadn't been sterilised, but merely washed in warm water. The result being transmission of infections.
Now if it was the case that she was running her organisations on a shoestring, you might forgive her from being able to provide such basic care. But she wasn't, she was raking in millions.
Yes, I am aware things were not good.
But what I want to gauge is how much of that was down to Mother Teresa and how much down to the Roman Catholic Church.
It is a very wealthy church with very poor members.
Talking to an ex nun I get the impression they are a bit stingy with allocating funds.
They are rich because they don't give it away to the poor.
-
On the other hand this site says they are the largest non governmental health care provider in the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care
They can't all be denying medicines and working on a shoe string can they?
-
http://qz.com/773476/mother-teresas-sainthood-means-little-today-to-the-city-she-called-home/
-
I think this is an interesting article written by a child who grew up in one of her homes.
Interestingly the person says of Mother Teresa
It was a chaotic place, but Mother Teresa was not trying to be a social worker -- that was not her job.
She was just following her deep love of her faith and her religion, and that's what drove her humanity.
She wasn't there to cure people and provide rehabilitation. She was there to pick the dying person, the throwaways of society, up off the street when no one else cared.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/30/asia/mother-teresa-gautam-lewis/index.html
Perhaps we see the aims of Mother Teresa as being wider than it actually was.
She literally just picked up the dying and gave them somewhere to be.
We expected more, hospice care and rehabilitation.
I don't think that's how she saw it, hence the issues.
-
She literally just picked up the dying and gave them somewhere to be.
But she failed to give them appropriate medical care, including pain relief.
She also picked up people who were ill but not dying, failed to diagnose then or provide treatment and allowed them to die when they could have lived.
We expected more, hospice care and rehabilitation.
I don't think that's how she saw it, hence the issues.
She has been described by those who criticised her as a friend of poverty, rather than a friend of the poor. And it isn't hard to see why when the following is a direct quote from her:
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
-
That would be utterly damning, if she brought in sick people, and didn't treat them, so that they died needlessly. Not saintly at all, in fact, sadistic.
-
But that cannot be true, after all dead she has performed miracles.
-
Seems to me that you lived your life like a......sorry sidetracked for a mo.
Seems to me that Sainthoods bestowed are the religious equivalent of an OBE from David Cameron.
Worth piss all.
-
On the other hand this site says they are the largest non governmental health care provider in the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care
They can't all be denying medicines and working on a shoe string can they?
Catholic healthcare providers routinely deny women access to birth control and abortions. So yes they are all denying medicine.
-
Catholic healthcare providers routinely deny women access to birth control and abortions. So yes they are all denying medicine.
Your sentence doesn't logically follow.
Yes Catholic healthcare providers don't supply birth control or give abortions but it doesn't follow they are denying ALL medicine.
I think you have the RC muddled with the Christian Scientists.
Anyway I think medicines for abortions and birth control were probably the last of the worries of those she took off the streets.
-
That would be utterly damning, if she brought in sick people, and didn't treat them, so that they died needlessly. Not saintly at all, in fact, sadistic.
Ok so you think they were better left on the street, to die.
Bear in mind if she hadn't been there, that's what would have happened to them.
In the UK we get treated for free when we are ill, but in other countries people have to pay for treatment or die.
Is Mother Teresa worse than a wealthy doctor who has a cure, but withholds it because the patient can't afford it actually any better?
For a while I corresponded with a pregnant lady in the states who was desperately worried about the health of her unborn child, but she couldn't afford to see a doctor.
Is a doctor who witholds a cure or pain relief because of monetary concerns any better than Mother Teresa?
Because in a lot of countries medical help costs money and a price is put on lives.
Here in the UK we are extremely lucky IMO because we tend to give it.
We don't have to remortgage our house if we need a lifesaving op.
However should we lose the NHS hospitals could well take in dying people they could cure, but not treat them.
That's what private means if you are so poor you can't afford expensive health insurance.
-
Yes I've made my substantive points, you chose to ignore them.
No I didn't.
its not the promoting of books that makes them dishonest, but whether they are spreading untruths to promote their books.
Which of my examples were spreading untruths? Obviously, we can let JK Rowling off the hook, but your main argument against Hitchens' seems to be that he promoted his book and that is a circular argument.
Christopher Hitchins is into character assassination, and it's promoting that in the way he did , that makes him dishonest. He is a disher of dirt.
Not if he is correct about Mother Teresa.
None of the others you mention go in for the sort of nasty character assassination that Christopher Hitchins does.
What about you? You are assassinating the character of Hitchens, or trying to.
That's how he sold his books, by dishing up the dirt on anyone who was well known.
Who else has he been dishing dirt on?
That's why I don't trust what he writes, because his agenda was to character assassinate anyone he thought was a target.
To make money! And make a name for himself.
None of the other authors you mention stoop that low.
Christopher Hitchens made a living out of character assassination, he's the lowest of the low IMO.
He belongs on the bookshelf alongside David Icke for making money by writing books aimed at making money by being malicious about other people.
It wasn't just Mother Teresa he attacked, was it?
He was a disher of dirt of the worst sort.
Bloody hell. You made your point in the first couple of sentences, repeating it endlessly like a demented theist isn't going to make you right.
-
Hitchens was extremely arrogant, pompous and ill mannered.
Actually, he was unfailingly polite to the people with whom he crossed swords.
I formed my opinion having seen him in discussion many times on youtube or TV and I have no anti-Hitchens agenda.
Right.... Show me a Youtube video where he didn't treat his opponent with the respect they deserved.
-
Yes, I am aware things were not good.
But what I want to gauge is how much of that was down to Mother Teresa and how much down to the Roman Catholic Church.
It is a very wealthy church with very poor members.
Talking to an ex nun I get the impression they are a bit stingy with allocating funds.
They are rich because they don't give it away to the poor.
The finances of her organisation were not controlled by the RC church.
-
One day I met a lady who was dying of cancer in a most terrible condition.
And I told her, I say, "You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus — a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you."
And she joined her hands together and said, "Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me".
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa)
-
Your sentence doesn't logically.
Yes Catholic healthcare providers don't supply birth control or give abortions but it doesn't follow they are denying ALL medicine.
I think you have the RC muddled with the Christian Scientists.
Anyway I think medicines for abortions and birth control were probably the last of the worries of those she took off the streets.
you changed the word order from 'all denying medicine' to 'denying all medicine' as this changes the meaning, I suggest you owe SqueakyVoice an apology for the misrepresentation.
-
No I didn't.
Which of my examples were spreading untruths? Obviously, we can let JK Rowling off the hook, but your main argument against Hitchens' seems to be that he promoted his book and that is a circular argument.
Not if he is correct about Mother Teresa.
What about you? You are assassinating the character of Hitchens, or trying to.
Who else has he been dishing dirt on?
Bloody hell. You made your point in the first couple of sentences, repeating it endlessly like a demented theist isn't going to make you right.
Mel Gibson, Princess Diana, President Bill Clinton, Reverend Jerry Falwell, Bob Hope and Mother Teresa just few that spring to mind.
-
Ok so you think they were better left on the street, to die.
Please, Rose, would you mind not telling me what I think?
I think it would have been better if sick people like this, had been diagnosed and given treatment, and not left to die.
-
Mel Gibson, Princess Diana, President Bill Clinton, Reverend Jerry Falwell, Bob Hope and Mother Teresa just few that spring to mind.
And if he is correct in what hew said about all those people?
Certainly he was fiercely critical of many people but that is not the same as character assassination.
-
Please, Rose, would you mind not telling me what I think?
I think it would have been better if sick people like this, had been diagnosed and given treatment, and not left to die.
And also, perhaps some of them only died because MT was too miserly to even sterilise her needles.
-
Mel Gibson, Princess Diana, President Bill Clinton, Reverend Jerry Falwell, Bob Hope and Mother Teresa just few that spring to mind.
Like you did hypocritically with your approach on Hitchens drinking?
-
Hitchins was a polemicist: and a rather good one too in both writing and oratory, so you'd hardly expect him to be shy and retiring - and I'd say he hit the target in his exposure of the hideous Agnes (amongst others).
I'm just astonished that in this day and age some people still take this medieval sainthood/miracles nonsense seriously.
-
Ok so you think they were better left on the street, to die.
You are massively missing the point, and there are 2 parts to this.
First she has massive resources available to her, so had she chosen she couldn't have provided high quality care to those people. For reasons that I cannot fathom (but I don't have her faith perspective) she chose not to provide that medical care.
But the second point is that due to her globally high profile she acted as a kind of magnet for funding to Calcutta to provide care to the poorest, and therefore sucked resources from others who might actually have provided much better care had the funding gone their way rather than hers.
I will dig out and post the details of what Robin Fox found in the early 90s when he visited. And remember he was a hugely eminent doctor, and editor of the leading medical journal The Lancet - he was horrified.
-
I think one of his criticisms (Fox) was that she didn't distinguish between curable and incurable people, so that the curable patients could easily die also, through neglect. If a doctor did that, surely they would be struck off.
-
Actually, he was unfailingly polite to the people with whom he crossed swords.
Right.... Show me a Youtube video where he didn't treat his opponent with the respect they deserved.
Unfailingly polite? :o
Well he was quite rude to the audience here as well as the others in the discussion.
The audience didn't deserve that.
https://youtu.be/MoclaTQWzvc
-
Unfailingly polite? :o
Watch some of his videos. He, unlike you, understood the difference between eviscerating an argument and eviscerating a person.
-
Like you did hypocritically with your approach on Hitchens drinking?
No the people who met him all commented on his drinking.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7778346/An-audience-with-Christopher-Hitchens.html
-
Another interesting take on Mother Teresa
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/oct97/mothert.html
One of the effects of MT removing sick poor people from the streets was that rich people did not have to look at them any more - out of sight, out of mind - and the rich paid handsomely for her to provide the service.
-
No the people who met him all commented on his drinking.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7778346/An-audience-with-Christopher-Hitchens.html
That's a classic ad hominem. Hitchens' drinking has nothing to do with the validity of his arguments.
-
Also, a total derail.
-
No the people who met him all commented on his drinking.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7778346/An-audience-with-Christopher-Hitchens.html
and? you state that personal attacks are wrong yet you used his drinking to attack Hitchrns referring to him as a 'malicious drunk' ergo you are a hypocrite
-
Watch some of his videos. He, unlike you, understood the difference between eviscerating an argument and eviscerating a person.
You are not eviscerating an argument when you are putting your middle finger up to an audience.
I have watched some of his videos.
He's rude.
-
and? you state that personal attacks are wrong yet you used his drinking to attack Hitchrns referring to him as a 'malicious drunk' ergo you are a hypocrite
I'm not in a position of authority in the media to make unprovoked attacks on people to sell my books.
When I swagger onto a podium be as rude as him, stick my middle finger up to an audience and never let anyone else get a word in edge ways, abuse my position in the media ......... Then yes, I'll be a hypocrite.
-
You are not eviscerating an argument when you are putting your middle finger up to an audience.
I have watched some of his videos.
He's rude.
And another personal attack being used hypocritically and as an ad hominem
-
I'm not in a position of authority in the media to make unprovoked attacks on people to sell my books.
When I swagger onto a podium be as rude as him, stick my middle finger up to an audience and never let anyone else get a word in edge ways, abuse my position in the media ......... Then yes, I'll be a hypocrite.
no, you said personal attacks were wrong and then have continually indulged in them on this thread. That's why you are a hypocrite.
-
Another interesting take on Mother Teresa
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/oct97/mothert.html
One of the effects of MT removing sick poor people from the streets was that rich people did not have to look at them any more - out of sight, out of mind - and the rich paid handsomely for her to provide the service.
The answer is not give to charity to organisations that don't fit in with your world view.
I have given to a Catholic Charity before, but because I thought it was beneficial that way, but I don't think with India the nuns overall vision fits in with my world view
The RC one I supported relied on them not converting others but building bridges between people and healing old wounds.
In fact I'd say the whole RC way of seeing things doesn't fit in with my world view.
Much better to help " save the children"or "the Red Cross."
The woman was just "a little old lady" that tried to help from a Catholic perspective.
Yes I think if she didn't have broader horizons of actually healing people she was wrong, she lacked vision.
The Roman Catholic Church got it wrong to make her a saint, it shows a lack of their vision, given the controversy over it.
However, I still don't like Christopher Hitchens and his habit of defaming people and taking a stab at people popular with the masses to make himself money.
Mother Teresa got it wrong because she was just a little old lady with some weird ideas, who lacked the vision of the difference she "could" have made.
What a positive example that could have been for the RC.
Who's to blame here?
One little old lady who was a bit odd? Or the media and publicity department that misrepresented what she was doing........?
Also there is an element that people like to put down public heroes because it makes them feel less bad about the things they haven't done.
Pointing the finger at others failures makes people feel better about their own.
I don't know what the truth really is, about this woman, I have read so many different accounts.
I don't trust some media celeb like Christopher Hitchins because the media are not past flogging their stories with their own twist, to sell papers.
His was to attack anyone who the public admired and trash them.
It was his trade mark, like John inmans was " are you free? "
It's something he sold.... His angle.
I don't like his angle, it sucks!
-
Mother Teresa had her faults, but she achieved much as well, and her legacy of 20 0r 30 homes for the poor is very real. It is always the case when someone who has been in the public eye dies the little people emerge from the woodwork with their denunciations. They usually have achieved nothing and never could.
-
Mother Teresa had her faults, but she achieved much as well, and her legacy of 20 0r 30 homes for the poor is very real. It is always the case when someone who has been in the public eye dies the little people emerge from the woodwork with their denunciations. They usually have achieved nothing and never could.
What like one of our foremost doctors who has spent his career caring for others and also was respected enough by his profession to become editor of the leading medical journal The Lancet.
This is what he said about her organisation when he visited:
'What sort of medical care do they get? It is haphazard. There are doctors who call in from time to time but usually the sisters and volunteers (some of whom have medical knowledge) make decisions as best they can. I saw a young man who had been admitted in poor shape with high fever, and the drugs prescribed had been tetracycline and paracetamol. Later, a visiting doctor diagnosed probable malaria and substituted chloroquine. Could not someone have looked at a blood film? Investigations, I was told, are seldom permissible. How about simple algorithms that might help the sisters and volunteers distinguish the curable from the incurable? Again no. Such systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Theresa prefers providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materialism; the sisters must remain on equal terms with the poor. So the most important features of the regimen are cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and loving kindness. (One requirement is that all prescriptions be written in pencil, and subsequently rubbed out, to allow re-use of the paper.) If you give money to Mother Theresa's home, don't expect it to be spent on some little luxury. Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Theresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.'
And this was in the early 90s when she'd been running her organisation for decades, had the ear of the great and the good and was pulling in countless millions in funding. She could have afforded to fund a high quality medical facility so that people could live, rather than die with limited pain relief and the bare minimum of medical care (basic wound care), but she chose not to.
-
The woman was just "a little old lady" that tried to help from a Catholic perspective.
She was only 40 when she started and by her death, she was a "little old lady" who was the CEO of an international charity that now turns over a million pounds a year in the UK alone.
I agree with you about the catholic bit though. Her Catholic faith blinded her to the fact that she was doing harm to people (that's IMO).
Who's to blame here?
One little old lady who was a bit odd? Or the media that misrepresented what she was doing........?
I think you are being misled by her physical appearance. I think MT was an incredibly astute operator and, if she was being misrepresented, she allowed it to happen.
-
Mother Teresa had her faults, but she achieved much as well, and her legacy of 20 0r 30 homes for the poor is very real. It is always the case when someone who has been in the public eye dies the little people emerge from the woodwork with their denunciations. They usually have achieved nothing and never could.
And this testimony from someone who actually volunteered and worked at her organisation:
'This is two rooms with fifty to sixty men in one, fifty to sixty women in another. They're dying. They're not being given a great deal of medical care. They're not being given painkillers really beyond aspirin and maybe if you're lucky some Brufen or something, for the sort of pain that goes with terminal cancer and the things they were dying of ...
'They didn't have enough drips. The needles they used and re-used over and over and over and you would see some of the nuns rinsing needles under the cold water tap. And I asked one of the why she was doing it and she said: 'Well to clean it.' And I said, 'Yes, but why are you not sterilising it; why are you not boiling water and sterilising your needles?' She said: 'There's no point. There's no time.'
'... [a boy of fifteen who was dying] had a really relatively simple kidney complaint that had simply got worse and worse and worse because he hadn't had antibiotics. And he actually needed an operation. ... [The American doctor looking after him said...] 'they won't take him to hospital.' And I said: 'Why? All you have to do is get a cab. Take him to the nearest hospital, demand that he has treatment. Get him an operation.' She said: 'They don't do it. They won't do it. If they do it for one, they do it for everybody.' And I thought - but this kid is fifteen.'
Shocking.
-
Ah, one of the little people! How many hospices have you set up? Have you won the Nobel Prize for your efforts? It seems to me that whatever her failings, Mother Teresa achieved more than you could even dream of.
-
Ah, one of the little people crawls out of the woodwork! How many hospices have you set up? Have you won the Nobel Prize? When you can point to what you have done for the poor, then you might just be qualified to criticise someone who has done something.
I haven't taken millions from donors to set up hospices - and from the account of Robin Fox she set up exactly the same number of hospices as I have - in other words none. Because in his view what she was providing was a long, long way from being a hospice. Note his words:
'Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Theresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement.'
-
Odd how those whose legacy to the world, and in particular their legacy to suffering Mankind will amount to nothing, are so ready to criticise and vilify those who have achieved much. Must be some sort of psychological hang-up!
-
Odd how those whose legacy to the world, and in particular their legacy to suffering Mankind will amount to nothing, are so ready to criticise and vilify those who have achieved much. Must be some sort of psychological hang-up!
If you take money from people to deliver care to needy people then I think you should use that money wisely. To fail to apply even the most basic of medical hygiene - for example by reusing needles without any proper attempt at sterilisation is appalling. And, of course, you have to ask (as others have) if she wasn't spending all those donated millions on disposable needles, or on employing properly trained medical staff, or on analgesics, or on diagnostic testing etc etc - where on earth did all that money go.
The problem is that her organisations have refused to release any financial details.
-
You are vehement in your criticism. Do you acknowledge that she, and her followers, then and now, have done, and do now, good for the poor and dying?
-
Mother Teresa had her faults, but she achieved much as well, and her legacy of 20 0r 30 homes for the poor is very real. It is always the case when someone who has been in the public eye dies the little people emerge from the woodwork with their denunciations. They usually have achieved nothing and never could.
Watcher Bashers, how you doing?
ippy
-
You are vehement in your criticism. Do you acknowledge that she, and her followers, then and now, have done good for the poor and dying?
No - not least because she failed to even determine whether people were actually dying or merely ill from easily treatable disease. Sure if she was running her organisation on a shoe string with no funds you might forgive her lack of proper care. But she wasn't - she was raking in millions - that the care given was so woeful (and in some cases deadly) was her decision.
-
Watcher Bashers, how you doing?
ippy
Hi, Ippy. Hope you're well. They've finally let me out for good behaviour!
-
No - not least because she failed to even determine whether people were actually dying or merely ill from easily treatable disease. Sure if she was running her organisation on a shoe string with no funds you might forgive her lack of proper care. But she wasn't - she was raking in millions - that the care given was so woeful (and in some cases deadly) was her decision.
I repeat: do you acknowledge that she and her followers have done much good for the deprived?
-
And this testimony from someone who actually volunteered and worked at her organisation:
'This is two rooms with fifty to sixty men in one, fifty to sixty women in another. They're dying. They're not being given a great deal of medical care. They're not being given painkillers really beyond aspirin and maybe if you're lucky some Brufen or something, for the sort of pain that goes with terminal cancer and the things they were dying of ...
'They didn't have enough drips. The needles they used and re-used over and over and over and you would see some of the nuns rinsing needles under the cold water tap. And I asked one of the why she was doing it and she said: 'Well to clean it.' And I said, 'Yes, but why are you not sterilising it; why are you not boiling water and sterilising your needles?' She said: 'There's no point. There's no time.'
'... [a boy of fifteen who was dying] had a really relatively simple kidney complaint that had simply got worse and worse and worse because he hadn't had antibiotics. And he actually needed an operation. ... [The American doctor looking after him said...] 'they won't take him to hospital.' And I said: 'Why? All you have to do is get a cab. Take him to the nearest hospital, demand that he has treatment. Get him an operation.' She said: 'They don't do it. They won't do it. If they do it for one, they do it for everybody.' And I thought - but this kid is fifteen.'
Shocking.
But Prof,
That's often how it is in a country where medical treatment has to be paid for upfront.
People even children don't get the treatment if their parents can't afford it, and if they have no parents then they have no way of funding it.
So the nuns were probably just telling it as it was.
It's true they could have funded it with charity money but the money wouldn't have gone very far then.
Where did the money go that they raised?
The charity?
I always assumed the RCC had it.
-
Hi, Ippy. Hope you're well. They've finally let me out for good behaviour!
Have you got your tin helmet on?
ippy
-
Have you got your tin helmet on?
ippy
I've become very benign - I won't need one...
-
Rose (re money): I always assumed the RCC had it.
No, the money went directly to Mother Teresa's mission and was used to fund it. It is an expensive business to keep going and those who work there don't want to turn anyone away.
Though the nuns and helpers/carers do not receive a salary, they still have to be housed and fed and be kept as healthy as possible otherwise they can't do the job.
-
Rose (re money): I always assumed the RCC had it.
No, the money went directly to Mother Teresa's mission and was used to fund it. It is an expensive business to keep going and those who work there don't want to turn anyone away.
Though the nuns and helpers/carers do not receive a salary, they still have to be housed and fed and be kept as healthy as possible otherwise they can't do the job.
It's an expensive business then and she didn't misappropriate or misuse funds.
She just she directed its use in a way that conformed to her personal Catholic beliefs.
Which is out of step with those who don't believe as she did.
People make mistakes in life, had she lived a life of luxury like some tv evangelists I'd be a lot more critical.
As it is I think I just disagree with her as to what really matters in life.
:)
-
She arranged for nearly dead people to be taken off the street, Christopher Hitchins didn't.
As far as I am aware none of the proceeds of his books went to the poor in India.
He didn't benefit them in any way other than to malign those trying to help and making people desert the very poor and sick in India.
Some help is better than none.
Criticise the way it was done, by all means, but bear it in mind that the Catholics were the ones helping no one else was interested.
Christopher Hitches hasn't helped anyone, certainly not the very poor in India.
Spreading hatred doesn't help.
No one else bothered with any of these dying people.
That's the truth of it!
What? St Chris?......The patron saint of fellow travellers.
-
I don't know how anyone can read those stories cited by Prof. D. and say that MT is doing good. Cancer patients receiving aspirin, a boy with a kidney complaint not given antibiotics. How can this be justified? Surely not lack of money. They killed curable people through neglect.
-
What? St Chris?......The patron saint of fellow travellers.
oh look it's an irrelevant strawman from Vlad, must be a day with a y in it.
-
I don't know how anyone can read those stories cited by Prof. D. and say that MT is doing good. Cancer patients receiving aspirin, a boy with a kidney complaint not given antibiotics. How can this be justified? Surely not lack of money. They killed curable people through neglect.
The reality being ignored here is that the local hospitals would not have treated those patients without payment.
The assumption is that the charity could afford to pay for it.
Can you show it could afford it?
-
Thinking back to being involved in reviewing NHS services (in the bad old days pre-retirement) there can be instances of caring even within a failing service - but where 'not fit for purpose' applies, as seems to be the case here, then there can be no excuses made.
I presume the RCC hierarchy see her as PR fodder for the faithful, hence this recent nonsense.
-
The reality being ignored here is that the local hospitals would not have treated those patients without payment.
The assumption is that the charity could afford to pay for it.
Can you show it could afford it?
I think it's been pointed out that they refuse to publish their accounts. They are supposed to receive many millions in donations, but can't afford basic drugs?
-
Thinking back to being involved in reviewing NHS services (in the bad old days pre-retirement) there can be instances of caring even within a failing service - but where 'not fit for purpose' applies, as seems to be the case here, then there can be no excuses made.
I presume the RCC hierarchy see her as PR fodder for the faithful, hence this recent nonsense.
IMO the NHS is a wonderful caring concept, long may it continue.
It may have faults, it may not be perfect, but it still helps those who have a need.
I'm happy my taxes help support such a thing :)
-
IMO the NHS is a wonderful caring concept, long may it continue.
It may have faults, it may not be perfect, but it still helps those who have a need.
I'm happy my taxes help support such a thing :)
which completely ignored the point made in Gordon's post
-
I think it's been pointed out that they refuse to publish their accounts. They are supposed to receive many millions in donations, but can't afford basic drugs?
All publically funded charities should have to publish their accounts IMO.
Along with their aims and goals, so people know what they are donating to
IMO that's only fair.
-
which completely ignored the point made in Gordon's post
Not really M T charity is not functioning in a British NHS mode
-
Not really M T charity is not functioning in a British NHS mode
which is irrelevant to the point about systemic failure. Charity cannot be judged when it does not support it's aims as OK simply for being charity.
-
IMO the NHS is a wonderful caring concept, long may it continue.
It may have faults, it may not be perfect, but it still helps those who have a need.
I'm happy my taxes help support such a thing :)
So - you are happy to fund a failing service as opposed to rectifying the failings: that is how taxes are wasted.
-
which is irrelevant to the point about systemic failure. Charity cannot be judged when it does not support it's aims as OK simply for being charity.
I think this is a misunderstanding about aims
Charity has many purposes, some you might not agree with.
Some might consider it gave some people a chance to save themselves.
Saving people has more than one interpretation.
-
So - you are happy to fund a failing service as opposed to rectifying the failings: that is how taxes are wasted.
No I'm saying the original concept of the NHS is wonderful.
I'm grateful for that.
-
I think this is a misunderstanding about aims
Charity has many purposes, some you might not agree with.
Some might consider it gave some people a chance to save themselves.
Saving people has more than one interpretation.
so what were the aims of MT's charity and how would you show it met them?
-
No I'm saying the original concept is wonderful.
I'm grateful for that.
and again ignoring if those aims are achieved.
-
so what were the aims of MT's charity and how would you show it met them?
At a guess, I'd say that her aims were to allow the very poorest of people, who no one else cared about ( think the Good Samaritan) to die with dignity and turn to Christ.
I think her actions embody a cross between Christ saying giving up everything for the kingdom of heaven, is giving up everything, and the poor will always be with us.
I don't see it that way, but can see they have a different set of values to me, in their eyes they are meeting it.
There is an argument that non of us values the life of a child over our own personal wealth. This includes me.
-
and again ignoring if those aims are achieved.
No, I'm just grateful for it.
It was a
Judgement in in my own diagnosis of cancer, that a life saving operation was even considered.
I am just aware that in another country like the states my diagnoses could have bankrupted my family.
-
At a guess, I'd say that her aims were to allow the very poorest of people, who no one else cared about ( think the Good Samaritan) to die with dignity and turn to Christ.
I think her actions embody a cross between Christ saying giving up everything for the kingdom of heaven, is giving up everything, and the poor will always be with us.
I don't see it that way, but can see they have a different set of values to me, in their eyes they are meeting it.
There is an argument that non of us values the life of a child over our own personal wealth. This includes me.
so you can neither describe the aims, or how it met them. And you seem to accept that even if the aims were something you disagreed with they would somehow be worth while.
-
No I'm saying the original concept of the NHS is wonderful.
I'm grateful for that.
Super - but why would we accept lesser very basic standards when it comes to overseas charities.
It may be that resources vary, but issues such as providing effective analgesia and sterilsation of instruments is very basic stuff (and the apparent need to re-use IV kits is itself an issue): fail on these issues and 'not fit for purpose' applies.
-
No, I'm just grateful for it.
It was a
Judgement in in my own diagnosis of cancer.
I am just aware that in another country like the states my diagnoses could have bankrupted my family.
but if it fails the aims you seem to want to ignore that. Say you had died because it failed in the aims and that failure was systemic, does someone saying bp 'I loved cancer' really get around that?
-
so you can neither describe the aims, or how it met them. And you seem to accept that even if the aims were something you disagreed with they would somehow be worth while.
No I just described the aims, you failed to understand them.
-
Super - but why would we accept lesser very basic standards when it comes to overseas charities.
It may be that resources vary, but issues such as providing effective analgesia and sterilsation of instruments is very basic stuff (and the apparent need to re-use IV kits is itself an issue): fail on these issues and 'not fit for purpose' applies.
We shouldn't
But charities abroad don't come with our assumptions. Especially religious ones.
That's up to us to sort.
-
so you can neither describe the aims, or how it met them. And you seem to accept that even if the aims were something you disagreed with they would somehow be worth while.
Not exactly.
I have no control other than the things I choose to donate too.
Plus those charities are operating under values that are not mine. ( as in cultural and societal norms )
It comes down to what you think is the greatest good.
-
No I just described the aims, you failed to understand them.
No, you as you stated 'guessed', hence your use of the words 'at a guess', about the aims and still couldn't show how what happened met your guess
-
No, you as you stated 'guessed', hence your use of the words 'at a guess', about the aims and still couldn't show how what happened met your guess
IMO my guess is more accurate than your condemnation of standards that don't meet your expectations.
The world doesn't meet your expectations.
-
IMO my guess is more accurate than your condemnation of standards that don't meet your expectations.
The world doesn't meet your expectations.
What does that mean? What are 'my expectations'? Are you off doing your guessing thing again? And then guessing that your guess might be right?
-
We shouldn't
But charities abroad don't come with our assumptions. Especially religious ones.
That's up to us to sort.
Bearing mind the funding they've had, and taking into account the reports of visiting experts (such as Fox), what bits of inadequate analgesia and sterilisation of equipment equating to 'not fit for purpose' are you having a problem with?
-
No, the money went directly to Mother Teresa's mission and was used to fund it. It is an expensive business to keep going and those who work there don't want to turn anyone away.
Though the nuns and helpers/carers do not receive a salary, they still have to be housed and fed and be kept as healthy as possible otherwise they can't do the job.
I don't think that's true - I think their 'running costs' would be astonishingly low. Firstly because there are no salary cost - they are volunteers as you mention. But also their premises costs would be minuscule given where they set up - in poor parts of cities in developing countries. And finally their ethos is that the sister are expected to live in a level of poverty similar to the people they cater for. So the basic costs for housing and feeding etc would be tiny.
So here is an organisation with income in the tens of millions, next to no outgoing costs and yet they aren't spending on diagnostic costs, proper pain relief, antibiotics, even paper!!!! Not because they can't afford it, but because they choose not to.
So the great unanswered question is where does all the money go. So it is either being siphoned off elsewhere (possible) or merely hoarded. We don't know for sure as they keep their finances secret. But there are some reports (particularly form fund raising in the USA) that the latter is true. Indeed I've read accounts of people working for the organisation she reported expensive items donated (perhaps as legacy) which were simply stored - not sold to generate income for use.
All very, very odd.
-
Many people just seem to have got into the habit of being skeptical and scornful. Compulsive disorder almost. ::)
St.Teresa has done remarkable things that none of us here would even thing of doing. She is considered a saint because she showed love and care to people (lepers) who no one (even many doctors) would even touch. She literally picked them up from the streets and gave them some dignity and care.
You people are going on and no about injections and needles. She gave them whatever care was available locally at that time. Five star treatment was never the option. Even today in India and many other poorer countries, over crowded hospitals in rural areas and even urban areas probably run with the same kind of very basic care.
-
Many people just seem to have got into the habit of being skeptical and scornful. Compulsive disorder almost. ::)
St.Teresa has done remarkable things that none of us here would even thing of doing. She is considered a saint because she showed love and care to people (lepers) who no one (even many doctors) would even touch. She literally picked them up from the streets and gave them some dignity and care.
You people are going on and no about injections and needles. She gave them whatever care was available locally at that time. Five star treatment was never the option. Even today in India and many other poorer countries, over crowded hospitals in rural areas and even urban areas probably run with the same kind of very basic care.
I think it's just she had so much money donated, Sriram.
People want to see where it was spent.
Sometimes I think ALL charities that get donations from the public should make their finances known even to be given the status of being a charity and to be allowed to advertise as such.
It would at least show people which ones were genuine.
-
Many people just seem to have got into the habit of being skeptical and scornful. Compulsive disorder almost. ::)
St.Teresa has done remarkable things that none of us here would even thing of doing. She is considered a saint because she showed love and care to people (lepers) who no one (even many doctors) would even touch. She literally picked them up from the streets and gave them some dignity and care.
You people are going on and no about injections and needles. She gave them whatever care was available locally at that time. Five star treatment was never the option. Even today in India and many other poorer countries, over crowded hospitals in rural areas and even urban areas probably run with the same kind of very basic care.
Wrong on so many counts.
She wasn't the only one providing care - despite the western 'myth' there were (and still are) many, many similar organisations working in Calcutta - indeed in one of the most well research and damning critiques of her work (by a person from Calcutta, so someone who actually knows what was going on on the ground) her organisation wasn't even in the top 20 in the city in terms of the number of poor people it helped. So hers was a astonishingly wealthy organisation doing very little while many other organisations with a fraction of her funding were doing far more.
And no I'm not banging on and on about needles - we are talking about basic fundamental care here. She could afford to provide basic care (clean needles, proper pain relief, basic diagnostic tests, antibiotics) - but she chose not to. The result that people with easily treatable diseases were assumed to be dying and were allowed to die. Others arriving would become infected with life threatening disease due to lack of basic medical hygiene. Those dying suffered unnecessary painful deaths (which if anyone has seen someone die in this manner is where dignity goes out of the window) because she withheld the necessary analgesics needed to manage their pain. She had tens of millions in funding - plenty to be able to provide such basic (and extremely cheap) items - she made the choice not to offer this basic care to the people she took in.
At best her choice on this is gross neglect, at worse massively abusive. Bad luck for anyone on the streets who encountered her organisation rather than one of the many others who provide much more appropriate basic and medical care to the most needy.
-
I think it's just she had so much money donated, Sriram.
People want to see where it was spent.
Sometimes I think ALL charities that get donations from the public should make their finances known even to be given the status of being a charity and to be allowed to advertise as such.
It would at least show people which ones were genuine.
Indeed - yet she has refused to do so in virtually all countries in which she works - in some cases acting against the law.
And you are right that people who donate should know how their money is being used and how the 'ethos' of the charity is being delivered.
I sure many of her donors would be horrified to learn that despite being able to afford basic care (clean needles, proper analgesics etc) she chose not to buy them and provide them to those in her care.
-
Many people just seem to have got into the habit of being skeptical and scornful. Compulsive disorder almost. ::)
St.Teresa has done remarkable things that none of us here would even thing of doing. She is considered a saint because she showed love and care to people (lepers) who no one (even many doctors) would even touch. She literally picked them up from the streets and gave them some dignity and care.
You people are going on and no about injections and needles. She gave them whatever care was available locally at that time. Five star treatment was never the option. Even today in India and many other poorer countries, over crowded hospitals in rural areas and even urban areas probably run with the same kind of very basic care.
Being named a Saint by the Catholic Church though needs something more than that, it needs miracles.
-
Wrong on so many counts.
She wasn't the only one providing care - despite the western 'myth' there were (and still are) many, many similar organisations working in Calcutta - indeed in one of the most well research and damning critiques of her work (by a person from Calcutta, so someone who actually knows what was going on on the ground) her organisation wasn't even in the top 20 in the city in terms of the number of poor people it helped. So hers was a astonishingly wealthy organisation doing very little while many other organisations with a fraction of her funding were doing far more.
And no I'm not banging on and on about needles - we are talking about basic fundamental care here. She could afford to provide basic care (clean needles, proper pain relief, basic diagnostic tests, antibiotics) - but she chose not to. The result that people with easily treatable diseases were assumed to be dying and were allowed to die. Others arriving would become infected with life threatening disease due to lack of basic medical hygiene. Those dying suffered unnecessary painful deaths (which if anyone has seen someone die in this manner is where dignity goes out of the window) because she withheld the necessary analgesics needed to manage their pain. She had tens of millions in funding - plenty to be able to provide such basic (and extremely cheap) items - she made the choice not to offer this basic care to the people she took in.
At best her choice on this is gross neglect, at worse massively abusive. Bad luck for anyone on the streets who encountered her organisation rather than one of the many others who provide much more appropriate basic and medical care to the most needy.
And that's the point I am making. Its not about the kind of care they got or the technology and state of the art stuff that they were provided. That needs doctors and money. She was special because she picked people (lepers) up from the streets and provided them love and care.....which no other doctors and wealthy people would do. So...its not about the kind of technology and care they received. The fact that they received something when no one else did anything, is what is special.
Money....many people (especially the missionary types) may not realize the importance of keeping up to date accounts and declaring their P&L and B/S and stuff. They will leave it to some accountant... and that is that. Their minds don't work from a commercial angle.
-
Being named a Saint by the Catholic Church though needs something more than that, it needs miracles.
Yes...and the fact that the Catholic church has done decades of investigation into the miracles that she is said to have performed, is proof that there is something to it. In today's world of science and transparency, it cannot be just a hoax.
-
Yes...and the fact that the Catholic church has done decades of investigation into the miracles that she is said to have performed, is proof that there is something to it. In today's world of science and transparency, it cannot be just a hoax.
Of course it is a hoax!
-
Yes...and the fact that the Catholic church has done decades of investigation into the miracles that she is said to have performed, is proof that there is something to it. In today's world of science and transparency, it cannot be just a hoax.
no, it doesn't because the Catholic Church doesn't have a method what are in this case claims of the supernatural. And your position on this does not help then since despite their 'decades' of research you are telling them that their claims are not miracles as how they regard them.
-
Of course it is a hoax!
the idea of miracle or a hoax is a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible that the miracle claims are being made by entirely genuine people.
-
the idea of miracle or a hoax is a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible that the miracle claims are being made by entirely genuine people.
Claims yes, but there is a natural explanation for them, imo. I experienced a 'miracle' of healing once, but firmly believe it was nothing to do with any supernatural entity.
-
Yes...and the fact that the Catholic church has done decades of investigation into the miracles that she is said to have performed, is proof that there is something to it.
They may well think this, but without some form of method underpinning their 'investigations' their conclusions are at best unfounded and at worst fallacious - so no 'proof' at all.
In today's world of science and transparency, it cannot be just a hoax.
That they accept these miracle claims doesn't imply a hoax though. It may be that by setting the evidential bar so low they could trip over is sufficient for them to genuinely support their desired conclusion of divine intervention.
-
Do people actually pray to saints for miracles?
-
Do people actually pray to saints for miracles?
Yes but to get to be a saint , you need to 'perform' first one miracle which gets you beatified, and then a second one to get canonised (special rules apply for martyrs)
-
Yes but to get to be a saint , you need to 'perform' first one miracle which gets you beatified, and then a second one to get canonised (special rules apply for martyrs)
Is that before or after they are dead?
-
I repeat: do you acknowledge that she and her followers have done much good for the deprived?
I think, in net terms, she made it worse for the poor and sick of Calcutta. She may have improved the lot of some people but she made others worse, perhaps even killing them.
Furthermore, because of her profile, other better charities working in Calcutta didn't get the funding they needed.
Also, note that when she became ill, she didn't spend her time lying on a camp bed in a room full of 50 other women being injected with dirty needles and being denied proper analgesics.
-
Is that before or after they are dead?
After
-
I think, in net terms, she made it worse for the poor and sick of Calcutta. She may have improved the lot of some people but she made others worse, perhaps even killing them.
Furthermore, because of her profile, other better charities working in Calcutta didn't get the funding they needed.
Also, note that when she became ill, she didn't spend her time lying on a camp bed in a room full of 50 other women being injected with dirty needles and being denied proper analgesics.
I agree with that.
The perception that she was necessarily doing good is predicated on the myth that hers was the only organisation helping the poor in Calcutta - it wasn't. There were and still are many other organisations that were helping more people, trying to help them more effectively (in other words believed in providing basic medical care such as clean needles, proper analgesics, antibiotics etc) yet were starved of the resources they might otherwise have received due to the tens of millions hoarded by MT which failed to be translated into a level of care commensurate with that level of funding.
-
After
So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?
-
Imagination is a powerful tool!
-
So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?
Whatever you do, do NOT use evidence, as that will mean that none will be attributed.
-
So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?
In the opinion of the Catholic Church, Mother Teresa is not dead.
-
So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?
I don't really see it makes any difference if they are alive or dead, but the Catholic Church's approach for miracle cures, and that seems to be all that is currently used for beatification and canonisation,is as follows:
'The patient was sick, there was no known cure for the ailment, prayers were directed to the Venerable, the patient was cured, the cure was spontaneous, instantaneous, complete, and lasting, and doctors cannot find any natural explanation.'
-
I don't really see it makes any difference if they are alive or dead, but the Catholic Church's approach for miracle cures, and that seems to be all that is currently used for beatification and canonisation,is as follows:
'The patient was sick, there was no known cure for the ailment, prayers were directed to the Venerable, the patient was cured, the cure was spontaneous, instantaneous, complete, and lasting, and doctors cannot find any natural explanation.'
Does this mean that if a natural explanation is found in the future, some saints will be dropped?
-
Does this mean that if a natural explanation is found in the future, some saints will be dropped?
I know the Catholic Church had a big clear out of saints but iirc that was done in the basis that there was no evidence the person existed. I don't know of any cases where the miracles were revisited and found to be natural but I am no expert on the subject.
ETA had a quick check and though there was a clear out of the liturgical calendar for Saints' days it appears the saints are still saints
-
Statistically speaking it would be interesting to know how often prayers for healing to god or the saints result in a positive response?
-
Statistically speaking it would be interesting to know how often prayers for healing to god or the saints result in a positive response?
there have been studies in prayer that show no effect but given the caveats placed around the concept it has little value. In addition even if there was a noticeable effect, we have no methods that would support the claims as to the supernatural.
-
Statistically speaking it would be interesting to know how often prayers for healing to god or the saints result in a positive response?
About as often as not praying.
-
About as often as not praying.
That is what I reckon.
-
So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?
Usually someone says they prayed to her and was miraculously healed.
-
no, it doesn't because the Catholic Church doesn't have a method what are in this case claims of the supernatural. And your position on this does not help then since despite their 'decades' of research you are telling them that their claims are not miracles as how they regard them.
They do have a method, because I remember reading about it once.
It's also here
http://www.catholicdigest.com/articles/faith/praying/2010/01-13/the-mystery-behind-a-miracle
Plus I think the store the bodies in the Vatican somewhere and they don't decompose like normal bodies.
One smelt of flowers apparently
-
They do have a method, because I remember reading about it once.
I have already covered their standard on the thread. I don't think it amounts to a method as it is does not establish supernatural, just says anything that isn't explained is supernatural.
-
Usually someone says they prayed to her and was miraculously healed.
and there isn't a method to show miraculously healed.
-
and there isn't a method to show miraculously healed.
The method is to show there can't have been a normal reason.
-
They dig you up and stick you in the Vatican
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381907/Body-late-Pope-John-Paul-II-exhumed-ahead-beatification-Vatican.html
It's full of old bodies.
-
The method is to show there can't have been a normal reason.
and how do you do that if you don't know all normal reasons?
-
I can't find the link I saw about the body that smelt of flowers but there is a bit here about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odour_of_sanctity
If Mother Teresa comes up smelling of violets or roses, they will see that of proof of her position and it will probably validate her miracles.
-
and how do you do that if you don't know all normal reasons?
They think they know all normal reasons.
-
It's all a bit grim really, opening up a coffin after 30 years washing the body then plonking them in another coffin, then going to have another look ten years later.
::)
I don't know why they don't stick her in a glass vacuum and then they can see her all the time.
Anyway, the fact she was in such good condition, smelt of flowers and her rosery was in a poor condition ( suggesting her flesh should have rotted) was considered a miracle.
It's all a bit morbid though, keep opening the coffin to look.
:-\
http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm
-
They think they know all normal reasons.
so not a method.
-
The concept is called
osmogenesia
-
so not a method.
Ok then, they have a procedure.
::)
-
Ok then, they have a procedure.
::)
Which is based on no method so is worthless in establishing what they claim.
-
Anyway they make a big deal of people not decomposing and keep digging them up
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81350
If you read that you'll see what I mean.
Apparently there are 91 bodies of popes in the Vatican crypts, I suppose it enables them to keep checking ..... Yuk!
I wonder how many times they'll dig up M T ?
It's all a bit yucky! ???
-
They dig you up and stick you in the Vatican
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381907/Body-late-Pope-John-Paul-II-exhumed-ahead-beatification-Vatican.html
It's full of old bodies.
Oh gross! I knew that sort of thing was done in days gone by but not now. Yeuch.
When you think there has to be a very, very good reason and Home Office permission to exhume a body in normal circumstances, it's scandalous.
-
and there isn't a method to show miraculously healed.
How would science deal with a leg that grew back?
Cue Gordon with it will never ever happen then Nearly Sane being eerily silent about the problem of induction.
-
How would science deal with a leg that grew back?
Cue Gordon with it will never ever happen then Nearly Sane being eerily silent about the problem of induction.
How would algebra deal with a eyelid that was turquoise?
The whole problem here is, as has been pointed out to you many many manytomes before, is that science is methodological naturalistic. It cannot show evidence for a supernatural claim. That's why you have been asked many many many times before for such a methodology and failed to provide it.
-
How would science deal with a leg that grew back?
Possibly te same way that you would deal with finding that, actually Islam had incontrovertibly got it right?
-
How would science deal with a leg that grew back?
Given that this actually occurs in many, many species (including vertebrates) and science has studied the mechanisms for years then this is hardly news and science has been 'dealing' with this for decades.
Now of course I guess you meant in a human - but failed to make that point - and that demonstrates your human-centric approach (something that science doesn't suffer from). Were this to happen in a human, and I suspect it would be a partial occurrence rather than a fully formed limb - then science would look to what it knows about the mechanisms in other species with a hypothesis that exceptionally unusually similar mechanisms had been triggered. Worth knowing (which I suspect you don't) that the basic pathways and molecules that drive limbs regeneration in other species are also present in humans although their capacity for regeneration seems to be attenuated for reasons we don't really understand yet.
So in regenerative medicine (a field of study I contribute to) the question is more about why limb regeneration occurs in some species but not others despite having similar fundamental mechanisms to control limb growth. And. of course, whether it might be possible to stop the attenuation of limb regeneration in humans in a controlled manner.
So I imagine if a human leg grew back it would be because scientists (using their knowledge of limb regeneration in other species) had worked out how to trigger those mechanisms in humans. So most likely it wouldn't be a 'miracle', but a miracle of science.
-
How would science deal with a leg that grew back?
Cue Gordon with it will never ever happen then Nearly Sane being eerily silent about the problem of induction.
The obvious answer, Vlad, is to investigate - in this case I'm assuming you aren't thinking of this happening in humans because of some future limb-regeneration therapies and that you are thinking here of spontaneous re-growth without any medical intervention. If the latter, since the former implies a natural explanation for the re-grown limb, this will require a method that that specifically supports the investigation of 'miracles' - so good luck with that, and we'd love to see the plan.
Of course you wouldn't take reports of a leg that reportedly spontaneously re-grown at face value in the first place: you'd surely need to ensure that these reports of this weren't mistaken or were deliberate lies, since it is known that people are fallible and that some people can fabricate claims. I'm sure you'd agree with me that anyone who accepted miracle claims on the basis of anecdote alone would be naive in the extreme, and especially so where there reports have uncertain provenance, may involve parties with an interest in promoting the claim, may involve retrospective unattributed second-hand reports, aren't recent or where the risks of mistakes or fraud cannot be excluded.
-
How would science deal with a leg that grew back?
Cue Gordon with it will never ever happen then Nearly Sane being eerily silent about the problem of induction.
I believe that charlatan Benny Hinn claimed his healing had caused an amputated limb to grow back!
-
I am having trouble with this whole idea of miracles.
What criteria is used for performing a miracle on any given individual. I am sure that Monika Besra was as deserving as anyone else of a miracle - but more deserving than any other person suffering?
How does this prioritisation of miracles work? Or is it just an example that God delivers through a chosen one to give us all hope?
If so, isn't God setting up the vast majority of people to feel rejected as not worthy to be cured of the illness that eventually will carry us all off?
Very strange. I prefer more rational explanations: Besra's husband and doctors all testified that Monika had been treated by drugs and cured.
Nobody lives forever - now that would be proof positive of miracles. We all die of something.
However, the human race produces many exceptions in the field of ill health where people recover when not expected to. It is an area that is fascinating and needs much more study - but to attribute it to miracles is a step too far.
-
I am having trouble with this whole idea of miracles.
What criteria is used for performing a miracle on any given individual. I am sure that Monika Besra was as deserving as anyone else of a miracle - but more deserving than any other person suffering?
How does this prioritisation of miracles work? Or is it just an example that God delivers through a chosen one to give us all hope?
If so, isn't God setting up the vast majority of people to feel rejected as not worthy to be cured of the illness that eventually will carry us all off?
Very strange. I prefer more rational explanations: Besra's husband and doctors all testified that Monika had been treated by drugs and cured.
Nobody lives forever - now that would be proof positive of miracles. We all die of something.
(((((However, the human race produces many exceptions in the field of ill health where people recover when not expected to. It is an area that is fascinating and needs much more study - but to attribute it to miracles is a step too far.)))))
I agree, in my opinion science will eventually come up with explanations for unexplained healings
-
To be fair to Vlad, his leg growing back question is caused by the many atheists who ask the 'Why doesn't god heal amputees?' question and stand back smiling smugly as if they have just done a logic knockout.
It is superficially appealing as a challenge to supernatural claims but strangely founders on the problem of induction that Vlad mentioned. It takes the position that there are no cases and will be no cases of an amputee growing a limb back without explanation. It then conflates that non occurrence as indicative of something that should it ever happen would be sufficiently non explainable that they would have to accept a supernatural cause.
This, in essence, accepts the supernatural claims as somehow being validated by their rarity, rather than challenging it at at the basic level that not explained does not mean unexplainable. Nor is there a way of demonstrating that inter subjective knowledge developed through the method of science could ever claim to be able to say that something could not happen naturally. Indeed it is set up as a set of methods where such a conclusion is impossible.
Linking this to the whole efficacy of prayer question, whilst the studies carried out seem to show no beneficial effect, this does not invalidate any claim of the supernatural cause but rather the naturally observed effect of actions. It does not and cannot address individual claims of 'my prayers were answered'. Further if studies consistently showed that prayer was efficacious (along with medicinal compound) in every case where a member of a specific religious group prayed, all this would confirm is the observed effect not the cause.
-
This, in essence, accepts the supernatural claims as somehow being validated by their rarity, rather than challenging it at at the basic level that not explained does not mean unexplainable. Nor is there a way of demonstrating that inter subjective knowledge developed through the method of science could ever claim to be able to say that something could not happen naturally. Indeed it is set up as a set of methods where such a conclusion is impossible
I think there is a key point here.
Whether or not a phenomenon can be claimed as 'supernatural' has nothing to do with its ubiquity or rarity - rather it rests on whether it is explainable by reference to natural physical laws. Note 'explainable' not 'explained' - so just because we do not understand something yet doesn't support it being supernatural, although of course if we do understand it by reference to natural physical laws the claim of supernatural fails.
So back to rarity etc - there was a time when very common phenomena (e.g. thunder/lightning or earthquakes) were considered to be supernatural despite not being rare. Now that of course was faulty thinking as they were (at the time) merely unexplained by reference to natural physical laws, rather than unexplainable. And once science started to study the phenomena they readily because explained.
Why I think there is a focus on the rare events in relation to supernatural claims today is that science has been very good at providing explanations for so many common phenomena - sure we might not understand everything, but we understand enough to negate the supernatural requirement that they are unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws.
But of course it is much harder for science to study very rare events - not because we don't have the tools, but simply because of their scarcity. Hence we have rare events which due to the challenge of study remain unexplained. Of course that doesn't support a claim of supernatural one iota, but those whose thinking is a touch muddled in this respect have a tendency to fixate on the rare and unexplained as synonymous with unexplainable and therefore supernatural. They are of course nothing of the sort, and it is likely that in due course science will begin to overcome the logistical challenges of study and begin to explain them by reference to natural physical laws.
-
I pretty much agree with all of that except for the bit 'although of course if we do understand it by reference to natural physical laws the claim of supernatural fails.'. Anything that we find by science I.e. that which is backed up or backs up natural physical laws can only be explained within that context. Every effect could in fact be being carried out by Kevin and his band of magical pixies but we have no method to establish that or to disprove it.
-
I pretty much agree with all of that except for the bit 'although of course if we do understand it by reference to natural physical laws the claim of supernatural fails.'. Anything that we find by science I.e. that which is backed up or backs up natural physical laws can only be explained within that context. Every effect could in fact be being carried out by Kevin and his band of magical pixies but we have no method to establish that or to disprove it.
Not sure I agree with you.
It seems far too low a bar to allow anything, even if completely explained by reference to natural physical laws, to still be considered plausibly supernatural means that everything is. To my mind something can only be credibly suggested to be supernatural if it cannot be explained by natural physical laws and I think this is a generally accepted definition.
-
I think one reason why many of us ask for a method that is suited to miracle claims that seem to fall outwith currently used methods and knowledge is in recognition of the possibility of there being an explanation via some alternative method(s) that involve suitably disciplined investigation that could convincingly (in terms of the method used) demonstrate divine intervention, and until then 'unexplained' or 'don't know' are reasonable positions to hold.
However, there is a prior step - and one that I keep banging on about - which is that the initial claim is free of the risks of mistakes or lies, or indeed other aspects of human artifice which might cast doubt on there being an actual 'something' to investigate, as opposed to there being just claim of this 'something'. These are very real risks and I've yet to see these being adequately dealt with by proponents of miracle claims, and especially where these events date to antiquity and where the evidence is anecdotal and in revered ancient texts so that fallacious arguments from tradition and authority are risks too.
I'd have thought that proponents of miracles would do better to develop methods to investigate more recent claims since if it were possible to confirm divine intervention in current circumstances, where both the details of the claimed miracle event and role of witnesses and supporters of the claim are amenable, this would surely aid the case for possible divine intervention in circumstances that are no longer amenable to investigation.
Unfortunately, in reading around the background to the claims involving the subject of this thread just by doing an internet search, there are seemingly reports by both the doctor who treated her and her husband that this woman recovered via medical intervention, and also a report that the case notes containing the details of her medical treatment are with the nun who is running the operation in Calcutta - so it seems to me that in spite of the RCC making her a saint there is a risk of deception in this case that hasn't been addressed.
-
Not sure I agree with you.
It seems far too low a bar to allow anything, even if completely explained by reference to natural physical laws, to still be considered plausibly supernatural means that everything is. To my mind something can only be credibly suggested to be supernatural if it cannot be explained by natural physical laws and I think this is a generally accepted definition.
I wasn't suggesting that that the supernatural is currently credible. In fact even in you 'generally accepted definition' I don't see it as credible since that is only ever going to be something not explained, nothing more. You couldn't as fatpr as I can see get to a 'cannot ever be explained' . You have a methodology that assumes natural causes. It dies not proce natural causes. All effects could be by Kevin and his pixies, how can a science show otherwise?
The whole idea that there is a happening which us known to be completely unexplainable by science is denying that science is always provisional.
-
To pick up Gordon's post, I don't, other than in seeking to show people that claims are worth challenging to find out whether they are true in terms of the facts, and that applies to naturalistic claims just as much as supernatural ones, see much point in treating the claims as valid to supernatural cause in this way. All we could ever establish is that the claim appeared to be something that doesn't fit in with our current understanding of natural processes. That in no way makes the claim of the supernatural cause any more valid.
-
I pretty much agree with all of that except for the bit 'although of course if we do understand it by reference to natural physical laws the claim of supernatural fails.'. Anything that we find by science I.e. that which is backed up or backs up natural physical laws can only be explained within that context. Every effect could in fact be being carried out by Kevin and his band of magical pixies but we have no method to establish that or to disprove it.
If that were the case then the claim still fails. Natural physical law would be our description of the rules by which Kevin operates.
-
If that were the case then the claim still stands. Natural physical law would be our description of the rules by which Kevin operates.
In which case the claim of supernatural for the phenomenon would fail. Sure we can engage in rather pointless conjecture about the supernatural existence of Kevin - but he would be an entity devoid of evidence for existence because all of the purported effects of Kevin would fail the supernatural test.
-
In which case the claim of supernatural for the phenomenon would fail.
Oops, I got it the wrong way round in my post, I meant to say that the claim fails. Will fix it.
-
If that were the case then the claim still fails. Natural physical law would be our description of the rules by which Kevin operates.
But the claim is about the cause, you can't say that Kevin and his magic pixies are not supernatural simply by saying you describe anything as natural.
-
In which case the claim of supernatural for the phenomenon would fail. Sure we can engage in rather pointless conjecture about the supernatural existence of Kevin - but he would be an entity devoid of evidence for existence because all of the purported effects of Kevin would fail the supernatural test.
There is no 'supernatural' test in a naturalustuc methodology. We cannot have evidence of such a thing using science.
-
But the claim is about the cause, you can't say that Kevin and his magic pixies are not supernatural simply by saying you describe anything as natural.
I didn't say I describe anything as natural.
The fact is that what we call "physical law" is a description of the way in which we observe objects behaving. We know nothing about the underlying mechanism of why things behave approximately according to these rules. The underlying mechanism might be Kevin and the Pixies or it might be a Matrix style computer or anything - it's inaccessible to us.
I do think the definition of "supernatural" is problematic. If we encounter something that doesn't behave according to the laws of physics, is it because there is a supernatural or is it because our understanding of the laws of physics is incorrect or is it because we were mistaken in our observation? If it's the supernatural option and we discover a way to observe it reliably, does it not then become part of the natural?
-
I didn't say I describe anything as natural.
The fact is that what we call "physical law" is a description of the way in which we observe objects behaving. We know nothing about the underlying mechanism of why things behave approximately according to these rules. The underlying mechanism might be Kevin and the Pixies or it might be a Matrix style computer or anything - it's inaccessible to us.
I do think the definition of "supernatural" is problematic. If we encounter something that doesn't behave according to the laws of physics, is it because there is a supernatural or is it because our understanding of the laws of physics is incorrect or is it because we were mistaken in our observation? If it's the supernatural option and we discover a way to observe it reliably, does it not then become part of the natural?
So if it is inaccessible to us that we cannot say the claim has failed. As to the three possibilities you post, it's only by realising that our method to investigate things we encounter that we don't understand is naturalistic that we can immediately put the supernatural to one side as bring a non useful answer.
As to whether reliably observing something would mean it was natural, part of the problem there is we observe effects, they may be seen as being caused by other things but that's the perception we have not a claim to an absolute. I think that anything we observe and investigate with science is by definition natural. Those making the claims of the supernatural cause seem to look on it as something that can never be natural because all that be seen is an effect that cannot happen within a naturalistic process. This means that science can never be of worth in that investigation. That there is no method given then to validate it simply makes it entirely spurious.
-
To pick up Gordon's post, I don't, other than in seeking to show people that claims are worth challenging to find out whether they are true in terms of the facts, and that applies to naturalistic claims just as much as supernatural ones, see much point in treating the claims as valid to supernatural cause in this way. All we could ever establish is that the claim appeared to be something that doesn't fit in with our current understanding of natural processes. That in no way makes the claim of the supernatural cause any more valid.
Yes, I can see that: if a claim seems contrary to current knowledge or isn't amenable to current methods of investigation then there is no basis to either accept or reject the claim. The best that can be said is 'no explanation', which doesn't open the door to the supernatural (whatever that is).
My concern when it comes to miracle claims is that there is that a 'something' occurred in the first place, since it seems to me that the risks of mistakes or lies get glossed over and that if the claim is fiction then there is nothing to be investigated in the first place: a bit like searching for the favourite pipe of Sherlock Holmes - it doesn't exist and never did.
-
Yes, I can see that: if a claim seems contrary to current knowledge or isn't amenable to current methods of investigation then there is no basis to either accept or reject the claim. The best that can be said is 'no explanation', which doesn't open the door to the supernatural (whatever that is).
My concern when it comes to miracle claims is that there is that a 'something' occurred in the first place, since it seems to me that the risks of mistakes or lies get glossed over and that if the claim is fiction then there is nothing to be investigated in the first place: a bit like searching for the favourite pipe of Sherlock Holmes - it doesn't exist and never did.
Yes, I think there is a need to say to people that make such claims that the claims to facts have to be properly investigated AND at the same time point out that until a further form of methodology can be put forward the most that will currently be established is something is that not explained.
-
So if it is inaccessible to us that we cannot say the claim has failed.
A supernatural claim can be found to be in compliance with physical law in which case it fails or it might be found not to have happened in which case it fails.
I think that anything we observe and investigate with science is by definition natural.
And when you take into account that science is the only means we have of investigating the real World it makes the definition of "supernatural" highly problematic.
-
A supernatural claim can be found to be in compliance with physical law in which case it fails or it might be found not to have happened in which case it fails.
And when you take into account that science is the only means we have of investigating the real World it makes the definition of "supernatural" highly problematic.
You can investigate a supernatural claim of effect in terms of if someone made a claim that if you pray to Kevin to be able to fly it will happen 8 times out of 10. That is you can see if a factual claim of a result is correct. You cannot find a cause claim in compliance or not compliance because I could as I mentioned earlier say that everything is done by Kevin and no set of investigations will show anything. All claims about the supernatural even ones about factual results are effectively about causes. This removes them from scientific investigation.
The definition is only problematic for anyone who wants to argue that they accept something as a cause that is not discoverable by naturalistoc means.
-
You can investigate a supernatural claim of effect in terms of if someone made a claim that if you pray to Kevin to be able to fly it will happen 8 times out of 10. That is you can see if a factual claim of a result is correct.
Yes.
You cannot find a cause claim in compliance or not compliance because I could as I mentioned earlier say that everything is done by Kevin and no set of investigations will show anything. All claims about the supernatural even ones about factual results are effectively about causes. This removes them from scientific investigation.
Actually, you could quite easily find out if the cause of you being able to fly (assuming you can fly) was praying to Kevin. You just need to set up some properly controlled experiments.
The question is then "what is the mechanism?". If a mechanism can be found that is in accord with natural law, clearly you do not have a supernatural event. If a mechanism cannot be found, either the event is supernatural or it is natural but beyond our science at the moment.
Here is where I have a problem with the word "supernatural": if we have a method for determining what the supernatural mechanism is, doesn't that automatically make the event natural. For example, if the mechanism that gives people who pray to Kevin the gift of flight is that Kevin and the Magic Pixies come to them and lift them on ectoplasmic jets emanating from the various orifices of their bodies, and we discover a method of verifying that, Kevin, the Pixies and the ectoplasm immediately become part of the natural World.
-
I can fly
( in a plane of course ;D )
-
Yes.
Actually, you could quite easily find out if the cause of you being able to fly (assuming you can fly) was praying to Kevin. You just need to set up some properly controlled experiments.
The question is then "what is the mechanism?". If a mechanism can be found that is in accord with natural law, clearly you do not have a supernatural event. If a mechanism cannot be found, either the event is supernatural or it is natural but beyond our science at the moment.
Here is where I have a problem with the word "supernatural": if we have a method for determining what the supernatural mechanism is, doesn't that automatically make the event natural. For example, if the mechanism that gives people who pray to Kevin the gift of flight is that Kevin and the Magic Pixies come to them and lift them on ectoplasmic jets emanating from the various orifices of their bodies, and we discover a method of verifying that, Kevin, the Pixies and the ectoplasm immediately become part of the natural World.
And that is why there is nothing 'supernatural'. Everything is natural. It is just that it is presently outside the purview of science.
Science probably understands just a fraction of what actually exists. Merely because we cannot understand or identify some phenomenon with known scientific laws does not mean it cannot exist.
-
Yes.
Actually, you could quite easily find out if the cause of you being able to fly (assuming you can fly) was praying to Kevin. You just need to set up some properly controlled experiments.
The question is then "what is the mechanism?". If a mechanism can be found that is in accord with natural law, clearly you do not have a supernatural event. If a mechanism cannot be found, either the event is supernatural or it is natural but beyond our science at the moment.
Here is where I have a problem with the word "supernatural": if we have a method for determining what the supernatural mechanism is, doesn't that automatically make the event natural. For example, if the mechanism that gives people who pray to Kevin the gift of flight is that Kevin and the Magic Pixies come to them and lift them on ectoplasmic jets emanating from the various orifices of their bodies, and we discover a method of verifying that, Kevin, the Pixies and the ectoplasm immediately become part of the natural World.
no you can find out if the claim is backed up by the effect, not the cause. You cannot have a method that assumes naturalism, that has no way of looking at cause as not being natural can deal with any non natural claim.
But you are absolutely right that any way of explaining things by science will be natural, it's written into the method. But it's based on the idea that anything you argue is a cause is natural. Given that the idea put forward by those that argue for the supernatural argue that it is breach of those processes, then it is meaningless to use a method that specifically excludes it. It seems to accept a shifting of the burden of proof of the claim to a method that is based on naturalism. That anyone understanding science would seek to accept that burden of proof, or think that they can make the burden seems odd.
-
And that is why there is nothing 'supernatural'. Everything is natural. It is just that it is presently outside the purview of science.
Science probably understands just a fraction of what actually exists. Merely because we cannot understand or identify some phenomenon with known scientific laws does not mean it cannot exist.
which means that you are saying to those who claim miracles validate any of their beliefs are talking mince. If Jesus rose from the dead it was just a sufficiently advanced civilisation.
-
which means that you are saying to those who claim miracles validate any of their beliefs are talking mince. If Jesus rose from the dead it was just a sufficiently advanced civilisation.
There is nothing 'just' about it. If Jesus walked on water...it IS something extraordinary because it is not something anyone else can do. But that does not make it supernatural. He knew how to do it....others don't! That is it. You can fire a gun that a Amazon tribal cannot...so it is extraordinary for the tribal ...but quite ordinary for you.
It is about how we expand the scope of our understanding and how we accommodate phenomena into our fold of knowledge. Its basically about labeling....nothing else.
It need not be about a advanced civilization from somewhere else. It could be something that we all are capable of but have not yet got around to. We have not yet grown and developed enough to bring certain phenomena into our area of understanding. It speaks of our limitations and not about the world. The world is what it is.
-
There is nothing 'just' about it. If Jesus walked on water...it IS something extraordinary because it is not something anyone else can do. But that does not make it supernatural. He knew how to do it....others don't! That is it. You can fire a gun that a Amazon tribal cannot...so it is extraordinary for the tribal ...but quite ordinary for you.
It is about how we expand the scope of our understanding and how we accommodate phenomena into our fold of knowledge. Its basically about labeling....nothing else.
It need not be about a advanced civilization from somewhere else. It could be something that we all are capable of but have not yet got around to.
Could well be, but the people who make supernatural claims aren't trying to say something was extraordinary. After all Adam Peaty's swim in the Olympic games is in that sense extraordinary. If you want to say to people that claim miracles are simply describing something like Peaty's swim to justify their beliefs, then you are telling them they are talking mince.
-
Could well be, but the people who make supernatural claims aren't trying to say something was extraordinary. After all Adam Peaty's swim in the Olympic games is in that sense extraordinary. If you want to say to people that claim miracles are simply describing something like Peaty's swim to justify their beliefs, then you are telling them they are talking mince.
It depends on who one is talking to. Taking the instance of the tribal. If the tribal tells another tribal that he witnessed something supernatural or miraculous when you fired a gun, ...he is not talking nonsense. But if your friend says he saw something miraculous he is talking nonsense. It depends on whether the phenomenon is within the purview of our understanding or not, at that point of time.
Something can be miraculous at one time and become natural later. Its about perception...and labeling.
There could be many mental phenomena that we don't understand. It could be considered as miraculous or ordinary depending on whether we have any clue of it or not.
I am off to bed now. See you tomorrow.
-
I am off to bed now. See you tomorrow.
sleep well
-
Sriram has his own take on it, but this is not a Christian view, surely. The vast majority of Christians see Christ as the divine breaking into nature, or a rupture in the natural order. That's one reason that you can't hoist yourself up by your bootstraps, you need grace, and grace is not from nature. Or as the Protestants say, you don't/can't earn grace. Salvation is not a reward for the good things you have done.
-
Sriram has his own take on it, but this is not a Christian view, surely. The vast majority of Christians see Christ as the divine breaking into nature, or a rupture in the natural order. That's one reason that you can't hoist yourself up by your bootstraps, you need grace, and grace is not from nature. Or as the Protestants say, you don't/can't earn grace.
miracle claims are a breach of cause and effect, they have to be for their import. If Jesus is merely advanced scientifically, it is as Sriram points out that a plane might be seen as miraculous by some
Actually it's somewhat worse than this, it means if the Catholic Church cannot explain a claim it might be lying, or being duped by an enemy of Jesus
-
no you can find out if the claim is backed up by the effect, not the cause. You cannot have a method that assumes naturalism, that has no way of looking at cause as not being natural can deal with any non natural claim.
Tell me what the difference is between a method that assumes naturalism and one that doesn't.
But you are absolutely right that any way of explaining things by science will be natural, it's written into the method. But it's based on the idea that anything you argue is a cause is natural.
No.
The scientific method does not rely on things being labelled as "natural". All that matters is that the method yields consistent repeatable results. If I claim that my ability to fly is based on Kevin's ectoplasmic effluence, I do not have to show that Kevin's ectoplasmic effluence is natural, I only have to find a way to falsify it.
But having done that, I have made Kevin and his ectoplasmic effluence part of the natural World.
If you define "supernatural" as "that which cannot be verified scientifically, then by definition it is not amenable to systematic study, but such a definition is a supernatural of the gaps.
-
Tell me what the difference is between a method that assumes naturalism and one that doesn't.
No.
One assumes naturalism and the other wan Disney! To be more serious I presume you asking what does a non naturalistic methodology look like. And the answer is I haven't a clue which is why I gave spent so long asking about one from those who claim miracles.
The scientific method does not rely on things being labelled as "natural". All that matters is that the method yields consistent repeatable results. If I claim that my ability to fly is based on Kevin's ectoplasmic effluence, I do not have to show that Kevin's ectoplasmic effluence is natural, I only have to find a way to falsify it.
But having done that, I have made Kevin and his ectoplasmic effluence part of the natural World.
If you define "supernatural" as "that which cannot be verified scientifically, then by definition it is not amenable to systematic study, but such a definition is a supernatural of the gaps.
And that's my whole point. Thise claiming supernatural causes are putting it beyond scientific investigation since no matter what science ever established their claim is still meant to a breach of the naturalistic assumptions of cause and effect.
-
How would algebra deal with a eyelid that was turquoise?
The whole problem here is, as has been pointed out to you many many manytomes before, is that science is methodological naturalistic. It cannot show evidence for a supernatural claim. That's why you have been asked many many many times before for such a methodology and failed to provide it.
But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.
I think it's worth analysing whether the conclusion of popular science at least I.e. A spontaneous regrow th probably due to an extreme manifestation of the placebo effect is in fact scientific?
-
But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.
I think it's worth analysing whether the conclusion of popular science at least I.e. A spontaneous regrow th probably due to an extreme manifestation of the placebo effect is in fact scientific?
no that is an assertion, not a methodology. It also means that by this rule at one point you are supporting the ideasideas that lightning was supernatural but isn't now so it is an illogical assertion.
And in addition your idea of unique which is simply bunged in with no justication is another example of your problem with induction. You do go for degree of difficulth of wrongness in your posts.
-
But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.
First you have to establish that there was an 'event' to start with.
How would you propose to assess the risks of exaggeration, mistakes or lies where there are only anecdotes claiming the alleged event occurred in the first place?
-
no that is an assertion, not a methodology. It also means that by this rule at one point you are supporting the ideasideas that lightning was supernatural but isn't now so it is an illogical assertion.
And in addition your idea of unique which is simply bunged in with no justication is another example of your problem with induction. You do go for degree of difficulth of wrongness in your posts.
Gibberish
-
Gibberish
And brave Sir Vlad runs away , runs away runs away!
-
She devoted her life to show love to the poorest of the poor. Her only possessions were a bucket and two saris. Whenever she spoke in front of politicians or high powered executives, she had a remarkable gift of subtly showing them the error of their ways with just a few humble words. I praise God for her wonderful life and inspiration.
-
She devoted her life to show love to the poorest of the poor. Her only possessions were a bucket and two saris. Whenever she spoke in front of politicians or high powered executives, she had a remarkable gift of subtly showing them the error of their ways with just a few humble words. I praise God for her wonderful life and inspiration.
just a pity about not spending money on sterilizing needles and thereby killing people
-
Vlad,
But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.
Nope. It's just an event for which there is no known law and no known scientific explanation. You know, just like thunder was for the Norse people.
-
Vlad,
Nope. It's just an event for which there is no known law and no known scientific explanation. You know, just like thunder was for the Norse people.
Good old Hillside .....getting science to write little prophetic promise or iOS notes to us.
-
Vlad,
Nope. It's just an event for which there is no known law and no known scientific explanation. You know, just like thunder was for the Norse people.
I'm talking unique events here . We know that thunder is a repeated event and therefore susceptible to science.
I'm just reflecting that any definition of supernatural with the word supernatural in it.....which your working definition seems to have in it ........is a bad definition.
-
She devoted her life to show love to the poorest of the poor. Her only possessions were a bucket and two saris. Whenever she spoke in front of politicians or high powered executives, she had a remarkable gift of subtly showing them the error of their ways with just a few humble words. I praise God for her wonderful life and inspiration.
In these circumstances your praise is perverse, as of course is this whole sainthood nonsense.
-
I'm talking unique events here .
I'll ask again: what checks would you make to ensure that these 'unique events' actually occurred?
After all, given the very human risks of mistakes and lies that are evident throughout history, before worrying about the details it would be important to know that the claimed 'event' actually happened in the first place. If are there only historic anecdotal accounts, which seems par for the course for miracle claims, then surely you'd need to eliminate the risks that the claim is either wrong in some way or could be wholly fictitious before accepting any anecdotal claims that a miracle occurred.
-
She devoted her life to show love to the poorest of the poor. Her only possessions were a bucket and two saris. Whenever she spoke in front of politicians or high powered executives, she had a remarkable gift of subtly showing them the error of their ways with just a few humble words. I praise God for her wonderful life and inspiration.
She received tens of millions in funding every year yet she denied the most basic of medical care to those in her homes - namely clean needles, proper analgesics, antibiotics. So people in her homes died in appalling pain when that pain should (and could) have been managed. She believed the suffering of the poor was somehow noble.
She refused to fund the most basic of diagnostic tests thereby failing to tell the difference between those who were actually dying and those who were merely ill with treatable diseases, allowing the latter to die when they could have lived.
She had the money to fund these basic things, yet refused to fund them, and it is still unclear where all that donated money went - it certainly didn't go into helping the poor. Yet when she was ill she ensured that she benefitted from the highest quality medical care.
She had an extremely dubious record in terms of the company she kept - regularly praising and being a strong supporter of the most authoritarian dictators and supporting anti-democratic actions in her adopted country.
Her global personality cult meant that she sucked money away from the many other organisations in Calcutta helping the poor, who were trying do the job properly, but suffered from lack of resources/funding (something that was never a problem for MT).
That is the person we are talking about.
-
Gordon
It depends on how you see miracles.
Everyone here seems to be obsessed with making miracles something which is outside the natural world.
But they don't have to be.
They can be an enormous and unlikely coincidence.
Miracles can be part of the natural world.
This is an example of something along the lines I mean.
http://www.history.com/news/the-man-who-survived-two-atomic-bombs
Sometimes people have stories where they have survived seemingly impossible odds.
Those can be miracles too.
The definition of a miracle is wider than something which is outside the natural world.
I don't think the RCC limits itself on a definition of miracles to things "outside" nature.
-
It depends to how you see miracles.
Everyone here seems to be obsessed with making miracles something which is outside the natural world.
Those that support miracle claims seem to want them to be instances of divine intervention that aren't natural.
But they don't have to be.
Especially so if the claimed miracle didn't happen in the first place, which seems to be a risk the proponents of miracles prefer to avoid.
They can be an enormous and unlikely coincidence.
Then they would just be unlikely natural events and not miracles.
Miracles can be part of the natural world.
The either they aren't miracles and are unexplained phenomena in relation to current knowledge regarding the natural world. However, there is still the issue of excluding the risks of mistakes and lies in that it may be that the claim is fictitious.
-
Getting back not so good 'saint' Teresa, I think she did more good leaving this world than she did when she was part of it!
-
This is the RCC definition of Miracles
Sometimes, however, man observes an event that cannot be explained by science because the normal powers of nature have been exceeded. The occurrence cannot
be attributed to natural causes nor can the laws of nature explain the outcome. Miracles occur in nature but are also truly supernatural because the normal powers of nature have been surpassed.
http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/above-and-beyond-the-churchs-teaching-on-miracles/
Gordon
Yes you might be right, they also seem to be looking for some hidden message about something to believe about God.
I think that's why some of their beliefs are very strange ( to me anyway)
MT will add to that oddity.
They appear to look for signs that conform and add to their already held perceived beliefs.
Let's hope they don't latch on to MT ideas on what really matters with things like pain relief or hygiene.
It's a self fullfilling thing, they declare miracles when it is what they want to hear or conforms to existing beliefs.
Its wishful thinking, they are not looking for miracles really but conformation of their own strange beliefs.
Anything that can be read as confirming it, gets the status.
But it has to supply that.
MT is in effect being used by the RCC to validate their own beliefs and justify their own ideas of their importance.
That's what a saint is.
Someone who validates what the RCC stands for, that they can use to validate their church in other people's eyes, mainly the congregations.
None of it is scientific, it's incredibly biased.
-
Vlad,
Good old Hillside .....getting science to write little prophetic promise or iOS notes to us.
Nope. You made a mistake and I identified it for you. An "event" (assuming it happened at all) for which there is "no law or scientific explanation" is not "by definition a supernatural event" (assuming for now that you have a cogent meaning for "supernatural").
All it would be would be an event for which there is no known law or scientific explanation. That's not to say that such an explanation would necessarily at some time be found, or even for that matter that ultimately it would turn out that there isn't one and that your "supernatural" wouldn't be the case. It is to say though that you have no basis whatever on which to claim "it is by definition a supernatural event".
"No known law or scientific explanation" is not in other words a synonym for "supernatural". Not by a long stretch.
I'm talking unique events here . We know that thunder is a repeated event and therefore susceptible to science.
Actually you're talking about stories that claim unique events but, leaving that aside, that an event happened uniquely and thus was not readily accessible to the tools of naturalistic enquiry doesn't somehow make it "supernatural". If thunder had happened only once it would still be a natural phenomenon whether or not we had an explanation for it.
I'm just reflecting that any definition of supernatural with the word supernatural in it.....which your working definition seems to have in it ........is a bad definition.
No you're not. What you're actually doing is confusing "no natural explanation to hand" with "therefore supernatural", which is poor thinking.
-
Many of the things we take for granted today would have been thought supernatural at one time.
-
But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.
I think it's worth analysing whether the conclusion of popular science at least I.e. A spontaneous regrow th probably due to an extreme manifestation of the placebo effect is in fact scientific?
I'm curious how you would establish that an event is unique. This connects with the issue of induction, as NS mentioned. For example, if I saw a tree take off vertically, and ascend into space, I wouldn't know that this was unique, and in fact, I have no way of establishing that. OK, I could look for similar stories, but for all I know, a tree is doing this right now in a remote part of Siberia.
As others have said, in any case, unusual events do not equate to the supernatural.
-
Wiggs,
I'm curious how you would establish that an event is unique. This connects with the issue of induction, as NS mentioned. For example, if I saw a tree take off vertically, and ascend into space, I wouldn't know that this was unique, and in fact, I have no way of establishing that. OK, I could look for similar stories, but for all I know, a tree is doing this right now in a remote part of Siberia.
As others have said, in any case, unusual events do not equate to the supernatural.
Just to add that, even if you had magic cctv that covered every part of the universe and that could do so retrospectively too, you'd still have no way of knowing that another tree wouldn't do that tomorrow. The best you could hope for would be "unique so far", though in any case uniqueness says nothing whatever about supposed supernaturalism.
-
But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.
No this is faulty thinking on two levels.
First as wiggs notes (and I've mentioned elsewhere) the uniqueness of an event is very difficult to ascertain, particularly over time - so that involves being sure firstly that it has never happened before (good luck with that), or that although it may be unique today it might not be tomorrow or next week or next year. So this may be the first of many occurrences for very sound reasons. So a good example might be the complete loss of ice cover during the summer in a particular location. It may be unique right now (i.e. it has never happened before), but if it is due to increase in global temperature you can be pretty sure that it is will happen regularly in future years, maybe even ever year from then on.
And using that discussion for a completely natural phenomenon leads to my second point. That is that uniqueness or ubiquity has nothing whatsoever to do with 'supernatural' or otherwise. To be supernatural surely the only criteria (albeit a big ask) is that it is unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws. And while in a way you allude to that in your post you get it wrong again - it is not that something hasn't been explained which makes it supernatural, it is that it is unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws.
-
Prof,
To be supernatural surely the only criteria (albeit a big ask) is that it is unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws. And while in a way you allude to that in your post you get it wrong again - it is not that something hasn't been explained which makes it supernatural, it is that it is unexplainable by reference to natural physical laws.
It's actually worse than that. It's not only "by reference to natural physical laws" but rather "by reference to natural physical laws assuming we have a complete and definitive understanding of what those laws are".
Now that would be a big claim!
-
'Supernatural' is a only term for something which we can't at present explain in natural terms. However as human knowledge increases we will continue to make new discoveries so eventually the term may become redundant.
-
Could well be, but the people who make supernatural claims aren't trying to say something was extraordinary. After all Adam Peaty's swim in the Olympic games is in that sense extraordinary. If you want to say to people that claim miracles are simply describing something like Peaty's swim to justify their beliefs, then you are telling them they are talking mince.
What I am saying is that reality exists at various levels and of various kinds.....most of which we probably cannot even imagine. As Eddington said...'The universe is not only stranger than we imagine...it is stranger than we can imagine'.
As an example...we normally think of the universe in three different scales. The subatomic world...the Newtonian world..and the cosmic world. The subatomic world has quantum effects such as entanglement and superposition that we don't see in the 'normal' Newtonian world. Similarly the Cosmic world has Relativity and gravitational waves and Dark Energy, event horizons etc. which are equally strange.
We find that our normal day to day world does not show signs of any quantum effects or cosmic effects. And QM and Relativity cannot be reconciled.
This gives the impression that we have three distinct and different worlds.....which is actually nonsense. There aren't three worlds. Its all the same one world. Each of the worlds merges into the other and forms a part of it. Cosmic world is composed if the 'normal' world and the normal world is composed of the quantum world. Within each of us are elementary particles for which quantum behaviour is normal. So...how can we separate out the three worlds? Which is 'natural' and which is supernatural?
All of them are natural...but we don't understand most of the things that are beyond our capacity to investigate. That is all.
-
Prof,
It's actually worse than that. It's not only "by reference to natural physical laws" but rather "by reference to natural physical laws assuming we have a complete and definitive understanding of what those laws are".
Now that would be a big claim!
You are right it is a very big claim.
But to claim otherwise (in other words supernatural means unexplained rather than unexplainable) means that we would have to accept that some phenomena change from being supernatural to being not supernatural as our knowledge and understanding increases. So lightning was never supernatural, even when we didn't understand it - nope it was always natural but we didn't used to understand its completely natural mechanism.
-
My old chestnut still applies, and always will: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-
Prof,
It's actually worse than that. It's not only "by reference to natural physical laws" but rather "by reference to natural physical laws assuming we have a complete and definitive understanding of what those laws are".
Now that would be a big claim!
Yes, I think black holes and quasars were pretty baffling at first, or 'exotic'. O mighty quasar, who shineth day and night, send us this day our daily quantum of gamma rays, and forgive me for stealing the lunch money.
-
Sriram,
What I am saying is that reality exists at various levels and of various kinds.....most of which we probably cannot even imagine. As Eddington said...'The universe is not only stranger than we imagine...it is stranger than we can imagine'.
As an example...we normally think of the universe in three different scales. The subatomic world...the Newtonian world..and the cosmic world. The subatomic world has quantum effects such as entanglement and superposition that we don't see in the 'normal' Newtonian world. Similarly the Cosmic world has Relativity and gravitational waves and Dark Energy, event horizons etc. which are equally strange.
We find that our normal day to day world does not show signs of any quantum effects or cosmic effects. And QM and Relativity cannot be reconciled.
This gives the impression that we have three distinct and different worlds.....which is actually nonsense. There aren't three worlds. Its all the same one world. Each of the worlds merges into the other and forms a part of it. Cosmic world is composed if the 'normal' world and the normal world is composed of the quantum world. Within each of us are elementary particles for which quantum behaviour is normal. So...how can we separate out the three worlds? Which is 'natural' and which is supernatural?
All of them are natural...but we don't understand most of the things that are beyond our capacity to investigate. That is all.
But these phenomena are all naturalistic in character. The issue here is that some people claim something they call "supernatural" - ie, outside or above the natural. Leaving aside the definitional problems with that, how would such a person distinguish "supernatural" from "natural but without a naturalistic explanation to hand"?
-
Sriram,
But these phenomena are all naturalistic in character. The issue here is that some people claim something they call "supernatural" - ie, outside or above the natural. Leaving aside the definitional problems with that, how would such a person distinguish "supernatural" from "natural but without a naturalistic explanation to hand"?
And that's the point. Everything that exists is natural. It may of course contain phenomena that don't fit into our understanding of the world. That doesn't mean its not natural. As I have said about the quantum effects that may seem bizarre....but are natural.
The 'supernatural idea is a dualistic idea. One world here (natural)...and the other world out there (supernatural). It is born of the biblical idea.
Much water has flown and today we know that the world is a wide spectrum.....from the quantum world to the normal world to the cosmic world ....and perhaps extending further on both sides into a sub sub atomic world and a super cosmic world. So the idea of just two worlds is outdated.
Out of this wide spectrum, we can measure and analyse only a small section.....which we call the natural world. Everything beyond that is also natural but beyond our scope of study.
Its all about labeling and nomenclature. The idea of a supernatural world is a human construct just as the idea of a natural world. The reality is that it is a spectrum out of which whatever we don't understand we have been labeling as supernatural. We don't need to do that any more.
-
Sriram,
And that's the point. Everything that exists is natural. It may of course contain phenomena that don't fit into our understanding of the world. That doesn't mean its not natural. As I have said about the quantum effects that may seem bizarre....but are natural.
The 'supernatural idea is a dualistic idea. One world here (natural)...and the other world out there (supernatural). It is born of the biblical idea.
Much water has flown and today we know that the world is a wide spectrum.....from the quantum world to the normal world to the cosmic world ....and perhaps extending further on both sides into a sub sub atomic world and a super cosmic world. So the idea of just two worlds is outdated.
Out of this wide spectrum, we can measure and analyse only a small section.....which we call the natural world. Everything beyond that is also natural but beyond our scope of study.
Its all about labeling and nomenclature. The idea of a supernatural world is a human construct just as the idea of a natural world. The reality is that it is a spectrum out of which whatever we don't understand we have been labeling as supernatural. We don't need to do that any more.
But the problem for those who believe in something they call "God" is that, as I understand the claim, they do think "He's" "supernatural" - ie, not bound by laws and forces that constitute what's meant by "natural". No matter what those things are, "He" can we're told do something else entirely whenever "He" feels like it. That's why for them asserting the supernatural is so important - without it, where would such a god be?
-
Sriram,
But the problem for those who believe in something they call "God" is that, as I understand the claim, they do think "He's" "supernatural" - ie, not bound by laws and forces that constitute what's meant by "natural". No matter what those things are, "He" can we're told do something else entirely whenever "He" feels like it. That's why for them asserting the supernatural is so important - without it, where would such a god be?
But we have seen from quantum mechanics and cosmology that laws could be very different in different scales. What applies in the 'normal' world need not apply in the quantum or the cosmic scale. Different parallel universes could have different laws that govern them. So..there is nothing sacrosanct about our laws of physics. They need not be universal (across universes I mean).
People living in parallel universes could have different laws. They could perhaps influence our world. They could do things that may seem magical to us. Is this natural or supernatural?!! Its how you want to perceive it.
So....maybe there are people in other universes who are not bound by the laws of physics in our world. Call them gods or whatever.....how does that matter?
'Supernatural' is just about unusual happenings and about being unbound by normal terrestrial restrictions. We now know that unusual happenings are everywhere in QM. They are happening within us all the time. Merely because we are able to study some of it...we label it as 'natural'.
As I have said...its about perception and labeling.
-
Sriram,
But we have seen from quantum mechanics and cosmology that laws could be very different in different scales.
etc
Yes, but they are still laws - presumably that apply consistently and that bind the people/aliens/whatever that are subject to them. You're just describing here different flavours of natural. The "God" claim on the other hand is that "He" is unbounded, not governed by laws or by anything else, supernatural. That's what the omnis would entail.
Possible different laws would still be laws nonetheless - whereas the god of the omnis would be outside of them. It's a free-for-all in other words, Wild West territory, anything goes (except oddly a god who's omni-beneficent would presumably be bound by "His" own character of not being horrible).
-
Sriram,
etc
Yes, but they are still laws - presumably that apply consistently and that bind the people/aliens/whatever that are subject to them. You're just describing here different flavours of natural. The "God" claim on the other hand is that "He" is unbounded, not governed by laws or by anything else, supernatural. That's what the omnis would entail.
Possible different laws would still be laws nonetheless - whereas the god of the omnis would be outside of them. It's a free-for-all in other words, Wild West territory, anything goes (except oddly a god who's omni-beneficent would presumably be bound by "His" own character of not being horrible).
I am not trying to accommodate biblical beliefs into my understanding of the world. I am only pointing out that what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time could now be considered as natural because our understanding of the world has expanded.
Having said that, the world is a wide spectrum and there will always be something that is outside the scope of our understanding...regardless of whether one wants to label it as natural or supernatural.
Goodnight!
-
Sriram,
I am not trying to accommodate biblical beliefs into my understanding of the world. I am only pointing out that what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time could now be considered as natural because our understanding of the world has expanded.
Having said that, the world is a wide spectrum and there will always be something that is outside the scope of our understanding...regardless of whether one wants to label it as natural or supernatural.
Well, "supernaturalist" beliefs in general perhaps but you're pushing at an open door for those who don't have them. Other though do have them, albeit grounded in fallacious reasoning (cf Vlad, Alan Burns et al).
-
I am only pointing out that what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time could now be considered as natural because our understanding of the world has expanded.
But just because we once didn't understand something doesn't mean it used to be supernatural.
Lightning and earthquakes are natural (and now we understand them) - but they were still natural before humans understood them, and were still natural before humans (or even life) arose. If you take your argument to its extreme it would mean that everything was supernatural prior to the evolution of life with sufficient cognition and curiosity to start to try to understand the world around them.
Things don't change from being supernatural to natural on the basis that we actually understand them. Our actual understanding is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether they are understandable according to natural physical laws - that is an entirely different thing.
-
Prof,
But just because we once didn't understand something doesn't mean it used to be supernatural.
Lightning and earthquakes are natural (and now we understand them) - but they were still natural before humans understood them, and were still natural before humans (or even life) arose. If you take your argument to its extreme it would mean that everything was supernatural prior to the evolution of life with sufficient cognition and curiosity to start to try to understand the world around them.
Things don't change from being supernatural to natural on the basis that we actually understand them. Our actual understanding is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether they are understandable according to natural physical laws - that is an entirely different thing.
To be fair what Sriram said was, "what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time" (my emphasis). He didn't imply that he thought these things actually were supernatural and later ceased to be.
-
Prof,
To be fair what Sriram said was, "what was considered as 'supernatural' at one time". He didn't imply that he thought these things actually were supernatural and later ceased to be.
Fair enough
-
I'm curious how you would establish that an event is unique. This connects with the issue of induction, as NS mentioned. For example, if I saw a tree take off vertically, and ascend into space, I wouldn't know that this was unique, and in fact, I have no way of establishing that. OK, I could look for similar stories, but for all I know, a tree is doing this right now in a remote part of Siberia.
As others have said, in any case, unusual events do not equate to the supernatural.
Good points although I am not talking about unusual events at all.
I'm heartened that now all of the problem with induction crew will now leap onto the cases of colleagues who insist that ''These things never happen and never will happen (Pigs ready for take off?)
What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.
That is just plain old pornographic scientism.......centrefold.....legs akimbo.
Crikey I suppose that makes a certain person the Paul Raymond of scientism.
-
What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.
Not yet explained by science: do you have an alternative method for explaining stuff?
-
Not yet explained by science: do you have an alternative method for explaining stuff?
Non sequitur and to be frank an example of using words shamanically.
Can you say for sure that everything will be answered by science?
-
Non sequitur.
Can you say for sure that everything will be answered by science?
Careful with all that straw, Vlad: I made no claims but simply commented on your gripe, asking if you had an approach to explaining stuff that wasn't science.
So, do you?
-
Good points although I am not talking about unusual events at all.
I'm heartened that now all of the problem with induction crew will now leap onto the cases of colleagues who insist that ''These things never happen and never will happen (Pigs ready for take off?)
What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.
That is just plain old pornographic scientism.......centrefold.....legs akimbo.
Crikey I suppose that makes a certain person the Paul Raymond of scientism.
Oh get off your rather predictable high horse.
I'm not sure I even mentioned science.
What I said is that for something to have a sustainable claim to be supernatural it must not be explainable by reference to natural physical laws. And further I have (quite reasonably) said that suggesting that there is a sustainable claim for supernatural where a phenomenon is merely not explained rather than not explainable is deeply faulty thinking.
-
Careful with all that straw, Vlad: I made no claims but simply commented on your gripe, asking if you had an approach to explaining stuff that wasn't science.
So, do you?
Scientism is not connected in any way to the presence or absence of any methodology.
It is a philosophical stance unevidenced by the very methodology it purports to be founded on.
One can only say that science doesn't know something. If you say science will eventually know all things that contains prophetic/unscientific elements since you are predicting a future not based on evidence.
The next port of call for scientism is to declare things that cannot be explained by science as non existent.
These are all mistakes you are making Gordon.
-
Non sequitur and to be frank an example of using words shamanically.
Can you say for sure that everything will be answered by science?
I see you've updated your post since my recent reply: so to add following your update, I take it 'shamanically' is code for me daring to ask you a question that follows from your earlier post when you said;
What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.
-
The next port of call for scientism is to declare things that cannot be explained by science as non existent.
Not at all - I've freely accepted that a phenomenon that is unexplainable by reference to natural physical law is 'supernatural'.
Problem is, of course, that you cannot provide any example of something that fits that bill - note note just not explained, but unexplainable.
Over to you.
-
Oh get off your rather predictable high horse.
I'm not sure I even mentioned science.
What I said is that for something to have a sustainable claim to be supernatural it must not be explainable by reference to natural physical laws. And further I have (quite reasonably) said that suggesting that there is a sustainable claim for supernatural where a phenomenon is merely not explained rather than not explainable is deeply faulty thinking.
I don't believe I was referring to you....are you a follower of scientism?
My position is this. Some questions are amenable to science and some aren't. My Beef is with the scientismatists or whatever you call these people who declare or suggest that all unknown things will be known by science. That reeks of the very type of supernatural prophesy they purport to be against.
Also I find myself between Gordon ........who is asking me to show that these things happen.......and Wigginhall and Nearly Sane who are asking me to show that these things don't happen more often???????
But somehow they never seem to criticise each others position.
-
I don't believe I was referring to you....are you a follower of scientism?
I've no idea - the whole concept seems to be something you throw at others. Is there anyone here you claims to be a follower of scientism?
-
Scientism is not connected in any way to the presence or absence of any methodology.
I'll leave 'scientism' to you, but I think you'll find that science regards method as being rather important.
It is a philosophical stance unevidenced by the very methodology it purports to be founded on.
The methodologies used in science, which aren't tablets of stone, work well enough for science: such as the technology we are both currently using - no doubt this technology was developed using methods appropriate to how computers and the internet work.
One can only say that science doesn't know something.
Scientists, and reasonable people, would agree with you.
If you say science will eventually know all things that contains prophetic/unscientific elements since you are predicting a future not based on evidence.
I'm not saying this, so you are misrepresenting me via your straw man,
The next port of call for scientism is to declare things that cannot be explained by science as non existent.
You are the expert on 'scientism', Vlad: but this just looks like you are overwhelmed by straw.
These are all mistakes you are making Gordon.
I'm just asking you a question, Vlad - one you seem reluctant to answer, hence your straw-filled evasion.
-
I've no idea - the whole concept seems to be something you throw at others. Is there anyone here you claims to be a follower of scientism?
You haven't heard of scientism? Look it up Laddy.
-
You haven't heard of scientism? Look it up Laddy.
I did - it seems to be a redundant notion.
It doesn't seem to any more valuable than creating an 'ism' for people who don't believe that there is an invisible magic teapot orbiting saturn. There is no onus on someone to prove or justify that position and therefore there is no relevant 'ism'. So just as the onus is on those claiming there to be an invisible magic teapot orbiting saturn to justify that claim, the onus is on those claiming there to be 'supernatural' things - i.e. not explainable by reference to natural physical laws to justify that claim.
-
Vlad,
What I an unhappy with is calling ALL EVENTS that have no explanation in science or natural laws ''things which science has NOT YET explained''.
And the king of the straw men has returned. No-one did say that - what they did say though was that your "if it can't be explained with naturalistic means then it must be supernatural" nonsense is a busted flush.
-
I'll leave 'scientism' to you, but I think you'll find that science regards method as being rather important.
The methodologies used in science, which aren't tablets of stone, work well enough for science:
Your just piously waffling now Gordon IMHO.
-
Vlad,
One can only say that science doesn't know something.
One can. What one cannot say though unless one wants to look like an idiot is that when science cannot explain something that something must therefore be supernatural.
And that was your claim remember?
-
Vlad,
My position is this. Some questions are amenable to science and some aren't. My Beef is with the scientismatists or whatever you call these people who declare or suggest that all unknown things will be known by science.
A near straw man but for its hat. Pretty much no-one does say that.
-
lad,
You haven't heard of scientism? Look it up Laddy.
I think perhaps that you should, if only to allow the Canadians to put this year's crop of straw to better use.
-
Your just piously waffling now Gordon IMHO.
If that is your opinion, Vlad, then I'm greatly reassured that I'm doing alright!
-
Vlad,
Ah.....The Bob Guccionne of promissory scientism.
And the lies just keep coming don't they. As your version of scientism is not something I've ever said, implied or even hinted at it seems the Canadians had better keep shipping I guess.
Incidentally, as you've gone all quiet on your "if science can't explain it, it must be supernatural" daftness can we take your silence and diversionary tactics now to mean that you've resiled from that, or do you cleave to it nonetheless?
-
If that is your opinion, Vlad, then I'm greatly reassured that I'm doing alright!
That's waffle with a cherry on the top.
-
That's waffle with a cherry on the top.
You're too kind, Vlad: one does one's best y'know, but praise like this - it just makes it all so worthwhile.
-
You're too kind, Vlad: one does one's best y'know, but praise like this - it just makes it all so worthwhile.
Youre welcome.
-
Youre welcome.
Good stuff: I seem to have run out of mickey for the taking of, so I'll amble off to check that everyone has been behaving themselves.
-
You haven't heard of scientism? Look it up Laddy.
Actually reading a little more, it would appear that scientism is a term coined by people who aren't scientismists (is that even a word) to throw at people who don't consider themselves as scientismists. It is a classic derogatory term used effectively to insult others who don't consider themselves advocates of the term used as an insult.
So are there any people who actively describe themselves as followers of scientism, rather than have that term thrown at them by non followers of scientism.
-
Prof,
Actually reading a little more, it would appear that scientism is a term coined by people who aren't scientismists (is that even a word) to throw at people who don't consider themselves as scientismists. It is a classic derogatory term used effectively to insult others who don't consider themselves advocates of the term used as an insult.
So are there any people who actively describe themselves as followers of scientism, rather than have that term thrown at them by non followers of scientism.
"Scientism" is one of a suite of terms that Vlad either inadvertently or wilfully misunderstands in order to construct a straw man argument. He uses it to mean "the belief that science can or will eventually answer everything" or similar, rather than its true meaning of placing undue weight on the methods of science.
As it happens even in its correct meaning as a criticism it's problematic I think. Science may or may not at least in principle be able to answer everything, but it's the only method we have that constructs working models of the universe that are testable and validated by inter-subjective experience. There could for all I know be phenomena that are "supernatural" (whatever that means) but how anyone would reliably access and investigate such phenomena is anyone's guess. This is when the religious will tend to play the "faith" card, though I've never yet found one who can explain the difference between faith beliefs and just guessing about stuff. Vlad in particular has spent years running away from that question for example.
And speaking of running away, I see that he's disappeared again when asked whether he sticks to his, "if science can't explain it it must be supernatural then" daftness of a few posts back. Ah well, 'twas ever thus I guess.
-
"Scientism" is one of a suite of terms that Vlad either inadvertently or wilfully misunderstands in order to construct a straw man argument. He uses it to mean "the belief that science can or will eventually answer everything" or similar, rather than its true meaning of placing undue weight on the methods of science.
Indeed.
But on a more general point I am very suspicious of terms than no-one uses to describe themselves, but are only used (usually in a derogative or dismissive manner) to describe others. Scientism seems a classic example - frankly I've never heard anyone claim to be a follower of scientism (and remember I spend my life with scientist, who one might argue are the most likely people to be scientism-ists). And reading about it it seems to be a term only used to be then knocked down - but if no-one actually stands up and says they are advocates of scientism then to attack it is classic straw man territory.
-
Prof,
Indeed.
But on a more general point I am very suspicious of terms than no-one uses to describe themselves, but are only used (usually in a derogative or dismissive manner) to describe others. Scientism seems a classic example - frankly I've never heard anyone claim to be a follower of scientism (and remember I spend my life with scientist, who one might argue are the most likely people to be scientism-ists). And reading about it it seems to be a term only used to be then knocked down - but if no-one actually stands up and says they are advocates of scientism then to attack it is classic straw man territory.
Well, we’re edging into hermeneutics here (“the understanding of understanding”). The proponent of hermeneutics would say something like, “science can explain the universe but only human perceptions can understand it”. Thus, say, science can tell me how my car works, but it cannot say whether using it to visit a friend in hospital is a morally good act.
To put it another way, truths aren’t objectively “out there” just waiting to be found, but rather they’re culturally determined and so we cannot approach the world as if we are blank pages waiting to be filled.
Increasingly these days people working in science take the same view (“I’m providing a truth, not the truth”) but the problem for the religious in particular I think is that their truths are subjective – there’s no method akin to the methods of science which at least has inter-subjective experience to underpin its narratives. Gravity for example is testable by jumping out of the window and seeing what happens. “God loves you” on the other hand is white noise for this purpose.
Anyways, yes – “scientism” (and in particular Vlad’s personal re-definition of it) is used as a point of attack. For those who would claim ultimate, foundational truths (if such people exist at all) that would have some merit, but for the most part the very provisionality of scientific theories tells you that the charge is misplaced.
-
Prof,
Well, we’re edging into hermeneutics here (“the understanding of understanding”). The proponent of hermeneutics would say something like, “science can explain the universe but only human perceptions can understand it”. Thus, say, science can tell me how my car works, but it cannot say whether using it to visit a friend in hospital is a morally good act.
To put it another way, truths aren’t objectively “out there” just waiting to be found, but rather they’re culturally determined and so we cannot approach the world as if we are blank pages waiting to be filled.
I don't see how your "another way" is the same as the first paragraph. It's absolute bollocks that there are no truths "out there". No amount of cultural determination is going to make the Sun orbit the Earth rather than the other way around.
-
Anyways, yes – “scientism” (and in particular Vlad’s personal re-definition of it) is used as a point of attack. For those who would claim ultimate, foundational truths (if such people exist at all) that would have some merit, but for the most part the very provisionality of scientific theories tells you that the charge is misplaced.
Sure - but I think that Vlad is also confusing science with the original discussion which was about the distinction between natural and supernatural.
So lets take an example - music. Sure science can explain exactly how music 'works' in terms of vibrational energy. Further it can tell us how we perceive music in a physiological manner - auditory function, nerve stimulation etc. It can even measure aspects of the emotional response, through measuring brain activity, endorphin release. What it struggles to do is to measure the importance music has to individuals, even if can measure aspects of the physiology - why because that importance is subjective and human specific.
So science can tell me why I feel in a particular way when I listen to a piece of music, physiologically, but that isn't really the important thing to me - what is important are the emotional effects on me.
So there are areas of emotion, philosophy, morality etc why lie beyond the useful realms of science.
But, and here is the important but - just because there are aspect of listening to music which are more importantly described outside of the sphere of science doesn't mean that music is somehow outside of the natural physical laws. Quite the opposite music is very obviously governed by those physical laws. So the importance of music may lie outside of the world of science, but music remains very much of the natural not the supernatural.
I think Vlad wants to confuse the two - somehow implying that because science doesn't tell us everything and because science is about the natural physical laws, then there must be things which are outside of those natural physical laws, i.e. supernatural. That, as with so much of vlad's arguments, is muddled thinking.
-
I don't see how your "another way" is the same as the first paragraph. It's absolute bollocks that there are no truths "out there". No amount of cultural determination is going to make the Sun orbit the Earth rather than the other way around.
Depends on your definition of truth.
It is objective (true for everyone, and everything) or can it be subjective (true for me).
I think it can be both, but it is important not to confuse the two - it may be true that I consider Mozart to be the greatest composer ever (a subjective truth), but that is a completely different type of truth than the earth orbits the sun.
-
jeremy,
I don't see how your "another way" is the same as the first paragraph. It's absolute bollocks that there are no truths "out there". No amount of cultural determination is going to make the Sun orbit the Earth rather than the other way around.
Why not? Presumably pre-Copernicus some would have said the same thing about the theory of the Sun orbiting the Earth. However unlikely you may think it is to be overturned, heliocentrism is still only the best available theory. Whence then your confidence in its ultimate, foundationally objective truth?
-
I think it can be both, but it is important not to confuse the two - it may be true that I consider Mozart to be the greatest composer ever (a subjective truth), but that is a completely different type of truth than the earth orbits the sun.
That you consider Mozart to be the greatest composer ever is either objectively true or objectively false. You either have that opinion or you don't.
That Mozart is the greatest composer ever is only subjective by virtue of the fact that none of us agree as to what criteria to measure for greatness.
-
jeremy,
Why not? Presumably pre-Copernicus some would have said the same thing about the theory of the Sun orbiting the Earth.
But they were wrong.
However unlikely you may think it is to be overturned, heliocentrism is still only the best available theory. Whence then your confidence in its ultimate, foundationally objective truth?
I'm sorry but the observations we have make it a certainty that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than the other way around. It's also a certainty, foe example, that each water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Although, as you say, science is always provisional, the probability that either of these facts or many others being overturned is too small to care about.
-
Prof,
Sure - but I think that Vlad is also confusing science with the original discussion which was about the distinction between natural and supernatural.
So lets take an example - music. Sure science can explain exactly how music 'works' in terms of vibrational energy. Further it can tell us how we perceive music in a physiological manner - auditory function, nerve stimulation etc. It can even measure aspects of the emotional response, through measuring brain activity, endorphin release. What it struggles to do is to measure the importance music has to individuals, even if can measure aspects of the physiology - why because that importance is subjective and human specific.
So science can tell me why I feel in a particular way when I listen to a piece of music, physiologically, but that isn't really the important thing to me - what is important are the emotional effects on me.
So there are areas of emotion, philosophy, morality etc why lie beyond the useful realms of science.
Yes there are. "Why do I feel emotion X when I listen to the Strauss Four Last Songs?" for example is not something I can find out by plugging in a feeling-ometer to discover. Whether it ever will be is moot - maybe one say the complexities of consciousness will be amenable to scientific enquiry, and Sam Harris for example has gone some way down that path in respect of morality. For now though, we have lots of don't knows.
But, and here is the important but - just because there are aspect of listening to music which are more importantly described outside of the sphere of science doesn't mean that music is somehow outside of the natural physical laws. Quite the opposite music is very obviously governed by those physical laws. So the importance of music may lie outside of the world of science, but music remains very much of the natural not the supernatural.
Yes, and so in the absence of any evidence whatever to suggest that anything exists outside the natural the presumption has to be that the universe is naturalistic in character. I'm not even sure what "supernatural" would mean in any case - a basic defitnitional problem for those who would assert it.
I think Vlad wants to confuse the two - somehow implying that because science doesn't tell us everything and because science is about the natural physical laws, then there must be things which are outside of those natural physical laws, i.e. supernatural. That, as with so much of vlad's arguments, is muddled thinking.
He hasn't just implied it, he's outright said it - and it's bad rather than muddled thinking I'd say.
-
jeremy,
But they were wrong.
And so in principle might be the heliocentrists.
I'm sorry but the observations we have make it a certainty that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than the other way around. It's also a certainty, foe example, that each water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Although, as you say, science is always provisional, the probability that either of these facts or many others being overturned is too small to care about.
That's contradictory - "certain" means certain, not "certain enough for the alternative not to be worth troubling with". The moment you allow at least for the possibility of being wrong - what if we're just glorified bits of software like characters in a SIMS game? - then these truths are constructions based on the best available data, rather than foundational, necessary, categorical, absolute truths. And that's cultural, and it's what hermeneutics is about.
-
jeremy,
And so in principle might be the heliocentrists.
But we all know it ain't gonna happen.
That's contradictory - "certain" means certain, not "certain enough for the alternative not to be worth troubling with". The moment you allow at least for the possibility of being wrong - what if we're just glorified bits of software like characters in a SIMS game? - then these truths are constructions based on the best available data, rather than foundational, necessary, categorical, absolute truths. And that's cultural, and it's what hermeneutics is about.
That's bullshit.
Nobody is ever going to wake up one day and find out that water is something other than H2O. These are truths that do not depend on culture.
-
jeremy,
But we all know it ain't gonna happen.
Seems unlikely to me too, but "knowing" that something "ain't gonna happen" and it being categorically impossible are not the same thing.
That's bullshit.
Nobody is ever going to wake up one day and find out that water is something other than H2O. These are truths that do not depend on culture.
Such certainty! It's an argument about principle - unless you've found some way to eliminate the problem of unknown unknowns, how can you be certain about that? It's cultures that developed the methods of science - Arabic, then Western and now global. Who's to say that different cultures wouldn't have done something different - and maybe thereby discovered that, say, we're all just algorithms in some celestial kid's computer game?
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0KHiiTtt4w
-
jeremy,
Seems unlikely to me too, but "knowing" that something "ain't gonna happen" and it being categorically impossible are not the same thing.
Such certainty!
Of course. Do you honestly think we are wrong about the chemical composition of water?
It's an argument about principle
The problem with your line is that it is the nuclear option. If we accept it, there is no arguing about anything.
In any case, you were arguing that truths are somehow cultural. This is clearly not the case. The fact that the Greeks thought water was an element does not mean that it wasn't composed of hydrogen and oxygen back then, they were simply wrong.
It's cultures that developed the methods of science - Arabic, then Western and now global.
It's people that developed the methods of science not cultures. The culture merely allows science to thrive - or not. The whole point of science is to discover what is true or not without the prejudices of the scientist including his cultural ones getting in the way.
-
jeremy,
Of course. Do you honestly think we are wrong about the chemical composition of water?
I think we're as right as we can be on the basis of that part of the universe we're capable of perceiving and of the tools and methods we have to hand to investigate the matter. That though says nothing about a possible base reality of which we're not aware or cannot investigate.
The problem with your line is that it is the nuclear option. If we accept it, there is no arguing about anything.
Not at all. Using the paradigm of the universe as it appears to be, I can argue perfectly cogently that water is made from oxygen and hydrogen and not from, say, unicorn tears. That's not to say though that there necessarily isn't a reality of which I'm not aware in which it turns out that water is made of unicorn tears. Truths, like everything else, are probabilistic.
In any case, you were arguing that truths are somehow cultural. This is clearly not the case. The fact that the Greeks thought water was an element does not mean that it wasn't composed of hydrogen and oxygen back then, they were simply wrong.
It's still culturally determined. You're arguing here for a Cartesian position - that once we get to the foundational truth of "I think" we can build the accurate model of the universe from there. That's a big clam though - the certainty rests only in the world of thought. How would you propose to bridge the perceptual gap between that and an "out there" reality? How would you validate the model your mind constructs, or even validate your ability access other minds?
It's people that developed the methods of science not cultures.
People are cultures - or at least the collective thoughts and practices of people are.
The culture merely allows science to thrive - or not. The whole point of science is to discover what is true or not without the prejudices of the scientist including his cultural ones getting in the way.
Nice thought, but how would you remove ourselves from that process? I agree that science provides the best available model we have but that's not to say that's it's the definitive one. Where we investigate, how we investigate, how we interpret our findings etc are all culturally determined to varying degrees. The "I" of "I believe that..." makes it so.
-
Yes, and so in the absence of any evidence whatever to suggest that anything exists outside the natural the presumption has to be that the universe is naturalistic in character. I'm not even sure what "supernatural" would mean in any case - a basic defitnitional problem for those who would assert it.
I'll ignore for Now the mention of Sam Harris.
The universe though is not totally naturalistic in character is it....... since there can only be one which can be observable.
Also there is the straight choice between the universe appearing out of nothing or being eternal (something not susceptible to science) and self-moved. The character of the universe is therefore described in terms of the one off or eternal for which there cannot possibly be observed laws......Cue Hillside to go off ''Carroll-ing'' ha ha.
These are not subject to science.
In terms of those proposing the term supernatural, the word appears in the 16th century presumably by burgeoning naturalist who sought to distinguish their new found interest.
The terms natural and supernatural are naff terms in any case and there is more than a hint of linguistic and philosophical imperialism through brute assertion that all should come under the banner of the natural.
-
Vlad,
I'll ignore for Now the mention of Sam Harris.
Why?
The universe though is not totally naturalistic in character is it....... since there can only be one which can be observable.
Non sequitur (proper meaning).
Also...
"Also..."?
... there is the straight choice between the universe appearing out of nothing or being eternal (something not susceptible to science) and self-moved. The character of the universe is therefore described in terms of the one off or eternal for which there cannot possibly be observed laws......Cue Hillside to go off ''Carroll-ing'' ha ha.
Even allowing for your (dubious at best) premise that has nothing whatever to do with the notion of the supernatural.
These are not subject to science.
Don't be silly - of course they are. If the evidence is available, "science" will examine it.
In terms of those proposing the term supernatural, the word appears in the 16th century presumably by burgeoning naturalist who sought to distinguish their new found interest.
No doubt. It's still your job to tell us what you mean by it though. It was your claim (albeit grounded on a logical fallacy) so you define it.
The terms natural and supernatural are naff terms in any case and there is more than a hint of linguistic and philosophical imperialism through brute assertion that all should come under the banner of the natural.
Leaving that wreckage of a sentence aside for now, you told us that the inability of science to explain certain phenomena must mean they are "supernatural". It's a daft assertion which your subsequent silence when questioned presumably means you've resiled from but as it was you who introduced the term it's a bit rum to tell us now that it's a "naff" one I'd have thought.
-
Not at all. Using the paradigm of the universe as it appears to be, I can argue perfectly cogently that water is made from oxygen and hydrogen and not from, say, unicorn tears. That's not to say though that there necessarily isn't a reality of which I'm not aware in which it turns out that water is made of unicorn tears. Truths, like everything else, are probabilistic.
But there is no culture in this Universe that can make the assertion "water is made of Unicorn tears" true. Cultures that believe that are simply wrong.
It's still culturally determined. You're arguing here for a Cartesian position - that once we get to the foundational truth of "I think" we can build the accurate model of the universe from there. That's a big clam though - the certainty rests only in the world of thought. How would you propose to bridge the perceptual gap between that and an "out there" reality? How would you validate the model your mind constructs, or even validate your ability access other minds?
We certainly have to make an assumption that there is an objective reality out there that is the same for everybody or science is worthless.
People are cultures - or at least the collective thoughts and practices of people are.
Individual people are not cultures. However their world views are influenced by their culture and science is a method which separates what is real from cultural influence and other personal prejudices.
Nice thought, but how would you remove ourselves from that process? I agree that science provides the best available model we have but that's not to say that's it's the definitive one.
If somebody in the future discovers a better model of water than molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (they won't btw) it wouldn't mean that our model is "true for us", it would just mean our model is false.
Where we investigate, how we investigate, how we interpret our findings etc are all culturally determined to varying degrees. The "I" of "I believe that..." makes it so.
The point of science is to reduce the varying degrees to zero. "I believe..." has no place in science.
-
Vlad,
Why?
Non sequitur (proper meaning).
"Also..."?
Even allowing for your (dubious at best) premise that has nothing whatever to do with the notion of the supernatural.
Don't be silly - of course they are. If the evidence is available, "science" will examine it.
No doubt. It's still your job to tell us what you mean by it though. It was your claim (albeit grounded on a logical fallacy) so you define it.
Leaving that wreckage of a sentence aside for now, you told us that the inability of science to explain certain phenomena must mean they are "supernatural". It's a daft assertion which your subsequent silence when questioned presumably means you've resiled from but as it was you who introduced the term it's a bit rum to tell us now that it's a "naff" one I'd have thought.
The universe though is not totally naturalistic in character is it....... since there can only be one which can be observable.
Also there is the straight choice between the universe appearing out of nothing or being eternal (something not susceptible to science) and self-moved. The character of the universe is therefore described in terms of the one off or eternal for which there cannot possibly be observed laws......Cue Hillside to go off ''Carroll-ing'' ha ha.
These are not subject to science.
-
jeremy,
But there is no culture in this Universe that can make the assertion "water is made of Unicorn tears" true. Cultures that believe that are simply wrong.
Only according to the findings of your cultural framework. There could be a culture somewhere that thinks that water is unicorn tears and for them that would be "true" too - just as for some cultures here it was true that not making the right sacrifices to the volcano god caused him to be angry.
You still seem to be locked in to the notion that water being made of oxygen and hydrogen must be an accurate model of a base reality. Why?
We certainly have to make an assumption that there is an objective reality out there that is the same for everybody or science is worthless.
Indeed we do if we are to function in the world as it appears to be. That though says nothing to whether or not the world we perceive and model "out there" is a foundational reality or just the version of it we can comprehend.
Individual people are not cultures. However their world views are influenced by their culture and science is a method which separates what is real from cultural influence and other personal prejudices.
Consider this exchange. We're doing it using the only tool we have - language. Language is precisely a cultural construct, and it delineates and bounds the ideas we're able to have and to share. The ancient Greeks had no word for "blue" for example so, for them, there was no such colour. We see colours in three base primaries - certain shrimps see colour in 26. What aspects of the universe can they access that we cannot?
If somebody in the future discovers a better model of water than molecules consisting of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (they won't btw) it wouldn't mean that our model is "true for us", it would just mean our model is false.
No, it would still have been true for us and we'd have functioned accordingly. Equally, a revised model in the future would just be true for the people who had it - again potentially subject to more revision later on.
The point of science is to reduce the varying degrees to zero. "I believe..." has no place in science.
Yes I know it is, but science is done by people! However much it's designed to eliminate bias (and it is) there are still lots of "I's" at the centre of it, with all that entails.
-
Vlad,
The universe though is not totally naturalistic in character is it....... since there can only be one which can be observable.
Also there is the straight choice between the universe appearing out of nothing or being eternal (something not susceptible to science) and self-moved. The character of the universe is therefore described in terms of the one off or eternal for which there cannot possibly be observed laws......Cue Hillside to go off ''Carroll-ing'' ha ha.
These are not subject to science.
You made a series of mistakes and now you've just repeated them. Why?
-
Vlad,
You made a series of mistakes and now you've just repeated them. Why?
You need to check your definitions Hillside.
We know the character of the universe, either something that popped out of nothing or something that is eternal and 'self perturbed' are not susceptible to science since both are unrepeatable events.....the universe being here.
Let's see you get round that.
The character is not therefore basically natural unless by an act of mere linguistic appropriation.
-
Vlad,
You need to check your definitions Hillside.
We know the character of the universe, either something that popped out of nothing or something that is eternal and 'self perturbed' are not susceptible to science since both are unrepeatable events.....the universe being here.
Let's see you get round that.
The character is not therefore basically natural unless by an act of mere linguistic appropriation.
Wow! That's some properly 24-carat gold-plated, fur-lined, ocean-going stupidity right there old son. Good effort - spectacular own foot shooting. Really spectacular.
First, of course the tools and methods of science can investigate one-off events when the evidence is there to do it. So far as we know there was one Big Bang, and yet we know already an astonishing amount about it to within a few billionths of a second of it happening.
Second, even if a one-off event presents no evidence to investigate that does not for one fraction of one moment of one second mean that the event must therefore have been a "supernatural" one. Good grief man - just for once try thinking willya? If there had only ever been one clap of thunder would that mean it was supernatural, or just that it was still a natural event that wasn't amenable to scientific investigation?
The gap between "no data to hand" and "supernatural" is as wide as the Grand Canyon, yet you seem not even to be aware of its existence.
Third, you can talk about the origins of the universe all you want but that says nothing whatsoever about your various assertions about a supposed supernatural. Your statement from which you've been running ever since was that, if science can't explain something, it must therefore be supernatural. It was a very stupid thing to say. Enough of the disappearing act - do you seriously think that nonetheless, or have you finally come to your senses and resiled from it?
A yes or no to either option would be fine.
-
Vlad,
Wow! That's some properly 24-carat gold-plated, fur-lined, ocean-going stupidity right there old son. Good effort - spectacular own foot shooting. Really spectacular.
First, of course the tools and methods of science can investigate one-off events when the evidence is there to do it. So far as we know there was one Big Bang, and yet we know already an astonishing amount about it to within a few billionths of a second of it happening.
Second, even if a one-off event presents no evidence to investigate that does not for one fraction of one moment of one second mean that the event must therefore have been a "supernatural" one. Good grief man - just for once try thinking willya? If there had only ever been one clap of thunder would that mean it was supernatural, or just that it was still a natural event that wasn't amenable to scientific investigation?
The gap between "no data to hand" and "supernatural" is as wide as the Grand Canyon, yet you seem not even to be aware of its existence.
Third, you can talk about the origins of the universe all you want but that says nothing whatsoever about your various assertions about a supposed supernatural. Your statement from which you've been running ever since was that, if science can't explain something, it must therefore be supernatural. It was a very stupid thing to say. Enough of the disappearing act - do you seriously think that nonetheless, or have you finally come to your senses and resiled from it?
A yes or no to either option would be fine.
Again, check your definitions of supernatural Hillside.
A universe can pop out of nothing but once or it can be eternal and set in motion by something or self perturbed. Also nothing else can pop out of nothing since the universe is here. Something not seen in nature. These events fit the description Hillside.
The turd you are trying to polish is to claim that I am suggesting that all of the things as yet unknown to science are supernatural.
You on the other hand have suggested that things not explained by science are merely waiting in sciences in tray and you gave the example of thunder..........a poor analogy for how the universe is.
I am happy that there are things that can be explained by science and things which never can be and the explanation of what the universe is either appeared out of nothing or eternally self perturbed belongs to the latter and is , in fact, supernatural because there can be no data to hand, ever.
In terms of science and the big bang even if we know what happened to within a billionth of a second. We know apparently that the laws of nature break down. There is also the problem of having nothing to observe. Nothing ......or eternity. There cannot be a scientifically observed law of universes since there is only one observed and can be by definition only one.
-
If there had only ever been one clap of thunder would that mean it was supernatural, or just that it was still a natural event that wasn't amenable to scientific investigation?
That's an interesting point.
We know that there can never be one thunderclap because more than one has been observed, there can therefore be laws of thunderclap, we can examine a few and arrive at an explanation.
I think we can therefore say yes.....That would come under the definition of supernatural.
What you are actually proposing is an alternative universe (Carroll-ing) and there can only be, for science, one universe. Even in it's own, supernatural universe your single thunderclap would be by definition, supernatural since there could never be a law, nor could it be investigated, the equipment would be unavailable and not set since the event could not be predicted and the laws of that universe would need to be temporarily changed or suspended for it to happen since it would be ''one thunderclap''.
You are making a leprechaun type argument
Leprechauns are ridiculous, they are also unfalsifiable, God is also unfalsifiable therefore God is ridiculous.
Here you are taking a single example of natural repeatable thing measurable by science and subject to observed law, putting it in a situation where it would be unrepeated, singular, impervious to science and not have a law attached to it while wishing to retain it's ''naturalness.''
-
Vlad,
Again, check your definitions of supernatural Hillside.
No, you check it. Look, I’ll even do it for you:
Supernatural: “The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD) is defined as being incapable to be explained by science or the laws of nature, characteristic or relating to ghosts, gods or other supernatural beings or to appear beyond nature.” (Wiki)
It does not mean, “phenomena for which no scientific explanation is to hand”.
A universe can pop out of nothing but once or it can be eternal and set in motion by something or self perturbed. Also nothing else can pop out of nothing since the universe is here. Something not seen in nature. These events fit the description Hillside.
No they don’t because you’ve gone not one jot of one iota of one step towards explaining why the Big Bang (or anything else for that matter) is “incapable to be explained by science or the laws of nature”.
The turd you are trying to polish is to claim that I am suggesting that all of the things as yet unknown to science are supernatural.
That’s exactly what you said, here in fact:
But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.
(Reply 207).
It’s your “turd”, not mine. Your only options are to stick with your mistake or to resile from it. You cannot though just pretend that you didn’t say it.
You on the other hand have suggested that things not explained by science are merely waiting in sciences in tray and you gave the example of thunder..........a poor analogy for how the universe is.
Stop lying – it’s dull. What I said perfectly clearly is that science may or may not find the ultimate answers but, in the meantime, the lack of a scientific explanation says nothing whatever about a supposed supernaturalism.
Thunder by the way was a good example of the point I was actually making, namely that lots of phenomena haven’t been understood (and so were thought to be supernatural) and later were understood (and so ceased to be thought supernatural). Thunder is one of them, hence Thor.
I am happy that there are things that can be explained by science and things which never can be and the explanation of what the universe is either appeared out of nothing or eternally self perturbed belongs to the latter and is , in fact, supernatural because there can be no data to hand, ever.
And again you get this flat wrong. That “there can be no data to hand, ever” is just your assertion and, even it turned out to be correct, “no data to hand” just means no data to hand – it does not mean “therefore operating outside natural laws”.
In terms of science and the big bang even if we know what happened to within a billionth of a second. We know apparently that the laws of nature break down. There is also the problem of having nothing to observe. Nothing ......or eternity. There cannot be a scientifically observed law of universes since there is only one observed and can be by definition only one.
None of which says anything whatsoever about the event therefore being “supernatural”. “Don’t know” and “supernatural” are not synonyms.
Why is this so difficult for you?
That's an interesting point.
We know that there can never be one thunderclap because more than one has been observed, there can therefore be laws of thunderclap, we can examine a few and arrive at an explanation.
Way to miss the point Sparky. Yes of course there's been more than once clap of thunder, but it was a thought experiment – hence the “if”.
The point of course was that, if a phenomenon – any phenomenon – happens only once that does not make it “supernatural”. All it makes it is difficult or impossible to investigate with the tools of science.
I think we can therefore say yes.....That would come under the definition of supernatural.
Then you continue to think wrongly – that’s not what the word means at all.
What you are actually proposing is an alternative universe (Carroll-ing) and there can only be, for science, one universe. Even in it's own, supernatural universe your single thunderclap would be by definition, supernatural since there could never be a law, nor could it be investigated, the equipment would be unavailable and not set since the event could not be predicted and the laws of that universe would need to be temporarily changed or suspended for it to happen since it would be ''one thunderclap''.
That’s a lot to get wrong in one paragraph. I’m proposing no such thing, and again “supernatural” does not mean “not accessible to the tools of science”. To be supernatural, something would necessarily have to operate outwith the naturalistic paradigm in which science operates.
You are making a leprechaun type argument
No, the leprechaun argument concerns the effect on an argument when it leads to “God” and to leprechauns equally – something else you’ve never managed to grasp.
Leprechauns are ridiculous, they are also unfalsifiable, God is also unfalsifiable therefore God is ridiculous.
QED.
That’s not the argument at all. Some arguments (like the negative proof fallacy) work equally “well” for “God” and for leprechauns. Therefore those arguments are probably bad ones.
Do you get it now?
Finally?
Here you are taking a single example of natural repeatable thing measurable by science and subject to observed law, putting it in a situation where it would be unrepeated, singular, impervious to science and not have a law attached to it while wishing to retain it's ''naturalness.''
Of course it would have “laws attaching to it”. That there aren’t people or methods to hand to identify them is a different matter entirely.
You really, really need to start fresh here with a better understanding of the term "supernatural" to understand where you keep careering off the rails.
-
Vlad,
No, you check it. Look, I’ll even do it for you:
Supernatural: “The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD) is defined as being incapable to be explained by science or the laws of nature,
And on the single unique unrepeatable event
Of course it would have “laws attaching to it”. That there aren’t people or methods to hand to identify them is a different matter entirely.
Once more with feeling....................
Hillside
The single, unique, unrepeatable event or characteristic cannot be governed by, be covered by any 'Law' of nature or science NOR can any laws be derived from it. Period.
-
The single, unique, unrepeatable event or characteristic cannot be governed by, be covered by any 'Law' of nature or science NOR can any laws be derived from it. Period.
Once you've ensured that it occurred in the first place, especially when dealing with anecdotal reports of miracle claims involving people. Which reminds me, you've still to tell me how you assess the risks of mistakes or lies when dealing with anecdotal accounts.
-
Vlad,
And on the single unique unrepeatable event
Quote
Of course it would have “laws attaching to it”. That there aren’t people or methods to hand to identify them is a different matter entirely.
Once more with feeling....................
Hillside
The single, unique, unrepeatable event or characteristic cannot be governed by, be covered by any 'Law' of nature or science NOR can any laws be derived from it. Period.
1. Evasions noted.
2. Why on earth can't it be? There is absolutely nothing about naturalism that means that a natural, law-governed event cannot happen just once, and nor moreover that there has to be someone around to investigate it for it to be so.
To be supernatural a phenomenon has to be outside or above the laws of nature; whether it happens one, twice or a bajillion times is entirely irrelevant for the purpose establishing that. Period.
-
And on the single unique unrepeatable event
How can you know that an event is unrepeatable Vlad? Note unrepeatable, not unrepeated.
-
Once you've ensured that it occurred in the first place, especially when dealing with anecdotal reports of miracle claims involving people. Which reminds me, you've still to tell me how you assess the risks of mistakes or lies when dealing with anecdotal accounts.
I'm sorry Gordon but this debate goes beyond the limitations of your brain.
The universe must have either come into existence out of nothing or have been created or be eternal and perturbed (changed) by an external or be eternal and self perturbed. Those are our only options......ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them.
Not only that there can be but one start of the universe and one universe observable by science.
Nothing can ever pop out of nothing since there is something already here. A unique eternal is a one off thing.
The universe you see is evidence of a supernatural event which is not describable in terms of natural laws or scientific investigation which operates on repeatability.
-
Prof,
How can you know that an event is unrepeatable Vlad? Note unrepeatable, not unrepeated.
He can't.
Nor can he know that an event we only believe to have happened once hasn't in fact happened more times than that already.
Nor, even if he could do those two things and thereby show an event to be unique, does he have an argument of any kind to take him from "unique" to "supernatural".
Apart from that though...
-
Vlad,
ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them.
Try really, really had to see what's wrong with that sentence.
If you can finally manage it I'll give you a Liquorice Allsort.
Deal?
-
I'm curious what these unrepeatable events are. Any clue, Vlad?
-
How can you know that an event is unrepeatable Vlad? Note unrepeatable, not unrepeated.
If the universe is, as one theory goes, a succession of big bangs and crunches that would mean it is eternal and not subject to cause and effect. If the presence of change is due to something outside of the universe that would be supernatural since it would not be subject to natural laws. If it is self perturbed then that does not follow any observed law.
Conjuring up multiverse does not help at all here.
There is no escape that the character of the universe as something given a helping hand or helping itself is not susceptible to science or laws.
-
I'm curious what these unrepeatable events are. Any clue, Vlad?
See above. If Gordon's brain only allows him to conceive of things in the universe with no questions asked about the character of the universe then yours somehow forbids you from recognising I have been talking about origins and overarching characteristics of the universe.
-
See above. If Gordon's brain only allows him to conceive of things in the universe with no questions asked about the character of the universe then yours somehow forbids you from recognising I have been talking about origins and overarching characteristics of the universe.
So you are saying that the universe is unrepeatable. How would you know that?
-
Vlad,
Try really, really had to see what's wrong with that sentence.
If you can finally manage it I'll give you a Liquorice Allsort.
Deal?
If YOU can manage it I'll give you a whole packet.
-
So you are saying that the universe is unrepeatable. How would you know that?
I ask you to see above. See about a series of big bangs and big crunches.
If the universe has a start, there can be no repeat
If the universe is just a never ending or beginning series of crunches and bangs then it is eternal and possibly self perturbed and these things are not observed or susceptible to science. There can be no law of universes since only one is observed.
Whatever the solution it cannot be susceptible to or observed except by a God and you are welcome to try and establish that Gods come under the remit of ''The natural''.
-
Wow, Vlad, where do you get this stuff? It looks as if you've read a paperback on cosmology, and you're regurgitating it without much sense.
-
Wow, Vlad, where do you get this stuff? It looks as if you've read a paperback on cosmology, and you're regurgitating it without much sense.
Let me spell it out again.
The universe exists as is
the fact that it exists must be due to
creation
or
It popped out of nothing
or if it was not created or popped out of nothing it must be eternal.
But how is change explained?
either the eternal universe has a helping hand
or it is self changed.
None of the above is susceptible to scientific investigation or subject to any known laws and since they are all unique situations there cannot be any laws of nature governing them and no law can be drawn from them.
-
If god created the universe who created god?
-
How can you know that an event is unrepeatable Vlad? Note unrepeatable, not unrepeated.
A good point. But the appearance of the universe i.e. the appearance of everything by definition cannot be repeated can it?
Neither can the eternal existence of everything.
You can tell Hillside that.
-
If god created the universe who created god?
A good question which by itself does not stop God from possibly creating the universe.
-
A good question which by itself does not stop God from possibly creating the universe.
No, but even if there was an intelligent designer there is no evidence it has anything to do with the god featured in the Bible, who seems like a very human production to me.
-
I'm sorry Gordon but this debate goes beyond the limitations of your brain.
The universe must have either come into existence out of nothing or have been created or be eternal and perturbed (changed) by an external or be eternal and self perturbed. Those are our only options......ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them.
Not only that there can be but one start of the universe and one universe observable by science.
Nothing can ever pop out of nothing since there is something already here. A unique eternal is a one off thing.
The universe you see is evidence of a supernatural event which is not describable in terms of natural laws or scientific investigation which operates on repeatability.
I didn't ask you about the universe, Vlad (although you do seem somewhat preoccupied by universes at present).
I simply repeated my previous question about how you address the risks of mistakes or lies when it comes to anecdotal reports of 'events', such as miraculous cures attributed to the subject of this thread.
-
No, but even if there was an intelligent designer there is no evidence it has anything to do with the god featured in the Bible, who seems like a very human production to me.
It might be an idea to debate that on another thread.
The reason being that On this thread we are arguing whether in fact there can be things which are not susceptible to scientific investigation using the methods of observation, repeatability etc or things which are not covered by any laws of nature.
If i'm not wrong you believe that science will be able to answer everything.........have I got that right?
-
Vlad,
If YOU can manage it I'll give you a whole packet.
It's simple enough. Here's your claim again:
"Those are our only options......ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them."
For this particular daftness to work you'd have to show that our obscure species in an obscure backwater of the universe had developed a method method that was comprehensively able to investigate every possible phenomenon and then concluded that one or some of them were not within any and all possible natural laws, and so must be "supernatural".
You've painted yourself here into a weird ontology of thinking that every possible natural process has somehow been mapped by current science, and so anything that doesn't fit must be supernatural. The reality of course is that it's entirely possible that there's a vast amount of knowledge we don't have and for that matter may never have, but not for one iota of one jot of one second does that jump you to "supernatural" with no logic to get you there.
I'll have my valet collect the Allsorts in the morning.
-
It might be an idea to debate that on another thread.
The reason being that On this thread we are arguing whether in fact there can be things which are not susceptible to scientific investigation using the methods of observation, repeatability etc or things which are not covered by any laws of nature.
If i'm not wrong you believe that science will be able to answer everything.........have I got that right?
I am of the opinion science will be able to answer it all one day, however long that takes.
-
Vlad,
The reason being that On this thread we are arguing whether in fact there can be things which are not susceptible to scientific investigation using the methods of observation, repeatability etc or things which are not covered by any laws of nature.
No we're not. You're conjecturing events that -even if we had perfect and complete understanding of all possible natural events - would fall outside of that knowledge. That's not the same thing as phenomena that in principle at least could be investigable if ever we had the tools and techniques to do it.
If i'm not wrong you believe that science will be able to answer everything.........have I got that right?
No-one claims that, and it's not what "scientism" means either despite your personal re-definition of the term.
-
I didn't ask you about the universe, Vlad (although you do seem somewhat preoccupied by universes at present).
I simply repeated my previous question about how you address the risks of mistakes or lies when it comes to anecdotal reports of 'events', such as miraculous cures attributed to the subject of this thread.
I think it comes down to how you think the world is and what offers the solutions to what you want to know.
I cannot take your line that these things never happen because that just flags up the problem of induction.
I also cannot take your approach to history which I see as an extension of your scientism.
Neither though am I a catholic, an ex catholic or even the axe grinding son of catholic forebears sore at having been forced to church so I am not keen to rush to pile up the miracle quotient.
Unlike you when talking about whether there are things that cannot note cannot be susceptible to science or covered by laws of nature; The explanation for how the universe is as is, I think it is vitally important to recognise that inexplicable things have happened which will remain inexplicable by naturalism.
These aren't just ''we don't knows '' these are ''science will not tell us''.
-
I am of the opinion science will be able to answer it all one day, however long that takes.
Why do you think that?
-
No-one claims that, and it's not what "scientism" means either despite your personal re-definition of the term.
Sorry, Floo seems to prove you wrong on this.
-
I think it comes down to how you think the world is and what offers the solutions to what you want to know.
There is ample evidence that people make mistakes or tell lies - I'm simply asking how you assess these risks when it come to claims about miracle 'events'. You seem to be ignoring the question.
I cannot take your line that these things never happen because that just flags up the problem of induction.
Which isn't what I've said - you're overflowing with straw again.
I also cannot take your approach to history which I see as an extension of your scientism.
So, my asking how you assess risks of human artifice in anecdotal accounts is 'scientism' - how does that work?
Neither though am I a catholic, an ex catholic or even the axe grinding son of catholic forebears sore at having been forced to church so I am not keen to rush to pile up the miracle quotient.
Not quite sure what you are saying here: sounds a little like you'd prefer to avoid these inconveniently embarrassing miracle claims, although I might be wrong.
Unlike you when talking about whether there are things that cannot note cannot be susceptible to science or covered by laws of nature; The explanation for how the universe is as is, I think it is vitally important to recognise that inexplicable things have happened which will remain inexplicable by naturalism.
I'm just asking about the risks of mistakes or lies but you seem determined to go nuclear.
These aren't just ''we don't knows '' these are ''science will not tell us''.
Have you considered that 'don't know' means exactly that.
-
Vlad,
It's simple enough. Here's your claim again:
"Those are our only options......ALL of them are impervious to science and so unique there cannot possibly be any law which governs them."
For this particular daftness to work you'd have to show that our obscure species in an obscure backwater of the universe had developed a method method that was comprehensively able to investigate every possible phenomenon and then concluded that one or some of them were not within any and all possible natural laws, and so must be "supernatural".
You've painted yourself here into a weird ontology of thinking that every possible natural process has somehow been mapped by current science, and so anything that doesn't fit must be supernatural. The reality of course is that it's entirely possible that there's a vast amount of knowledge we don't have and for that matter may never have, but not for one iota of one jot of one second does that jump you to "supernatural" with no logic to get you there.
I'll have my valet collect the Allsorts in the morning.
Sorry but any natural law demands repeatability and observability. All of what I have raised are by definition unrepeatable and/or unobservable by anything evolved.
I'm afraid I don't give prizes for just writing verbose grandiose sounding repetitions of previous error.
As you said yourself in your quote from Wikipedia the supernatural is that which cannot explained by science or subject to laws of nature.
You are of course talking about multiverse here. That doesn't help.
as for unknown unknowns...
-
Sorry but any natural law demands repeatability and observability.
Nope you are confusing natural laws with science, the latter being a method commonly used to predict what those natural laws are.
So on your latter view of observability - that requires there to be something that can observe, i.e. some living thing with sufficient higher level intelligence to be able to observe, or some measurement device able to 'observe'. Now that means that, by your definition events that occurred prior to the ability to observe must therefore fall foul of your definition. This is of course ludicrous.
-
...... That is the person we are talking about.
You seem well versed with Hitchens' attempts to deride the work of this saint.
But I wonder how many fortunate souls she helped to discover God's love.
And how many poor souls have been deprived of knowing God's love through Hitchens using his God given gifts to deliberately ridicule the Christian faith.
-
jeremy,
Only according to the findings of your cultural framework. There could be a culture somewhere that thinks that water is unicorn tears and for them that would be "true" too - just as for some cultures here it was true that not making the right sacrifices to the volcano god caused him to be angry.
But that wouldn't mean either of those things are actually true, because they are not and if they applied the methods of science they would find that out.
You still seem to be locked in to the notion that water being made of oxygen and hydrogen must be an accurate model of a base reality. Why?
Because numerous observations have told us that it is the correct model.
Consider this exchange. We're doing it using the only tool we have - language. Language is precisely a cultural construct, and it delineates and bounds the ideas we're able to have and to share. The ancient Greeks had no word for "blue" for example so, for them, there was no such colour. We see colours in three base primaries - certain shrimps see colour in 26. What aspects of the universe can they access that we cannot?
Colour perception is an artifact of the way the receptors in the eye react to different wavelengths of light.
The scientific model of light is not based on colours. There's nothing cultural about it.
Just because the Greeks had no word for blue doesn't mean they couldn't perceive light emitted in the range 500 nm to 400 nm.
-
You seem well versed with Hitchens' attempts to deride the work of this saint.
But I wonder how many fortunate souls she helped to discover God's love.
And how many poor souls have been deprived of knowing God's love through Hitchens using his God given gifts to deliberately ridicule the Christian faith.
I wonder how many unfortunate poor souls she duped into believing in her God's love?
And how many lucky people were rescued from a life of delusion by Hitchens using his own powers of persuasion?
-
You seem well versed with Hitchens' attempts to deride the work of this saint.
But I wonder how many fortunate souls she helped to discover God's love.
And how many poor souls have been deprived of knowing God's love through Hitchens using his God given gifts to deliberately ridicule the Christian faith.
I don't think Hitchens has ever with-held proper pain relief from people in appalling pain, nor allowed people to die who could have live had they received easily accessible medical help.
But you've sort of raised another point here, which hasn't really been addressed yet on this thread.
Lets not forget that most of the people in her homes won't have been Christian. Her organisation routinely engaged in non consensual baptism - I think that is counter to basic human rights. I suspect you'd be pretty miffed if someone inducted you without your permission into another religion.
-
Vlad,
Sorry but any natural law demands repeatability and observability. All of what I have raised are by definition unrepeatable and/or unobservable by anything evolved.
Well that's novel. Before there were people around to investigate them there was no gravity, no weak magnetic force, no...etc eh?
Okaaaay - so all was "supernatural" until an obscure species in a remote backwater of the Universe figured out how to some of it worked, at which point the previously supernatural bits magicked into natural phenomena eh?
How would that work would you say? Did the supernatural gravity for example become natural gravity some time around when Newton had his breakfast, when he wrote down his findings, when they were published? What if we think we have discovered something so it magics into the natural, but it turns out that we were wrong - do phenomena have a sort of return ticket back to the superrnatural just in case?
I think we should be told!
I'm afraid I don't give prizes for just writing verbose grandiose sounding repetitions of previous error.
As you said yourself in your quote from Wikipedia the supernatural is that which cannot explained by science or subject to laws of nature.
You are of course talking about multiverse here. That doesn't help.
as for unknown unknowns...
When your premise is a car crash (see above) then anything you try to rest on it fails a priori. The definition doesn't mean "phenomena that science can't explain" you banana - it means phenomena that in their inherent character can never be investigated by science because they sit outside of if its remit.
Good grief!
-
jeremy,
But that wouldn't mean either of those things are actually true, because they are not and if they applied the methods of science they would find that out.
Depends what you mean by "actually" true. They're true enough for the purposes to which they're put. Newtonian physics was true enough for the purposes to which it was put before Einstein showed up, when new truth models became available. You're still locked in to the idea of a base, "actual" truth that we have found but other cultures haven't. You can't do that though - the phenomenon of unknown unknowns alone tells you that. What if we are for example just algorithms programmed to think that water is what we think it is?
That's the thing about truth - there can be no "actual" because it's probabilistic. "X is probably true according the data available and the tools and processes we have to investigate them" is fine; "X is absolutely, categorically, irrefutably true" is not because that's something we cannot know to be the case.
Because numerous observations have told us that it is the correct model.
Yes, but only "correct" so far as our observations are accurate, and our interpretation of them maps precisely to an "out there" reality. I'm not saying that the conclusion we have is wrong, but you cannot just assume that it reflects a base reality either.
Colour perception is an artifact of the way the receptors in the eye react to different wavelengths of light.
And of the processing the brain does to interpret that data. How would you know that what you perceive as "red" is also what I perceive as "red"? (The "other minds" problem.)
The scientific model of light is not based on colours. There's nothing cultural about it.
Just because the Greeks had no word for blue doesn't mean they couldn't perceive light emitted in the range 500 nm to 400 nm.
But they saw no difference between that and the frequency for dark red ("the wine-dark sea") - it was all one colour to them. I forget the details, but there's a toad that recognises a snake orientated in one direction but not in another (one being "about to bite me" mode, the other being "not about to bite me"). Photons are reaching the eyes of the toad in each case, but for one the snake simply doesn't exist - it's invisible. That's the toad's reality, and that's a kind of culture too.
Incidentally, none of this implies that "true enough" isn't powerful and important - it's what gives us MRI scanners and space craft visiting comets, and it's what allows us to disqualify the claims of the religious when they crash through the tools we have to model reality. I'm just saying that it's dangerous territory to overreach into claims for it of certainty and absolutism.
-
Vlad,
Well that's novel. Before there were people around to investigate them there was no gravity, no weak magnetic force, no...etc eh?
Okaaaay - so all was "supernatural" until an obscure species in a remote backwater of the Universe figured out how to some of it worked, at which point the previously supernatural bits magicked into natural phenomena eh?
How would that work would you say? Did the supernatural gravity for example become natural gravity some time around when Newton had his breakfast, when he wrote down his findings, when they were published? What if we think we have discovered something so it magics into the natural, but it turns out that we were wrong - do phenomena have a sort of return ticket back to the superrnatural just in case?
I think we should be told!
When your premise is a car crash (see above) then anything you try to rest on it fails a priori. The definition doesn't mean "phenomena that science can't explain" you banana - it means phenomena that in their inherent character can never be investigated by science because they sit outside of if its remit.
Good grief!
Hillside
As you know it is my belief that not only do you hate me, but I suspect you despise everybody on this forum.
I am not talking about the repeatable and yet here you are talking about gravity and the weak magnetic force.
I am talking about the existing of the universe as is which is either due
to a creator or it popped out of nothing or it is eternal and had a helping hand or it is eternal and perturbs itself.
There are no other alternatives there are no clues from the inside except for a big bang.
They are beyond observation unless you postulate the eternal being and I don't think you of all people would go down that route.
You are as they say trying to describe the whole of a ping pong ball from the inside.
-
Vlad,
As you know it is my belief that not only do you hate me…
Don’t be silly. Why on earth would I hate you? I do hate (if that’s the right word) your behaviour – the dishonesty, the endless evasions, the obtuseness etc – but so far as I’m concerned there is no “you” to hate even if I was so inclined. "You" are just a four-letter moniker.
…but I suspect you despise everybody on this forum.
Then, as so often, your suspect wrongly
I am not talking about the repeatable and yet here you are talking about gravity and the weak magnetic force.
Makes no difference – you’re still confusing “phenomena which the naturalistic tools and methods we have do not explain” with, “phenomena that in their very nature inherently can never be investigated by naturalistic means”. That’s your big mistake just there.
I am talking about the existing of the universe as is which is either due
to a creator or it popped out of nothing or it is eternal and had a helping hand or it is eternal and perturbs itself.
There are no other alternatives there are no clues from the inside except for a big bang.
Why, as it has nothing whatever to say to the notion of “supernatural”? "Inexplicable" and "supernatural" are not the same thing, whether or not the event is unique.
They are beyond observation unless you postulate the eternal being and I don't think you of all people would go down that route.
You are as they say trying to describe the whole of a ping pong ball from the inside.
No, you are trying to dupe people into thinking that “not amenable to the naturalistic means of investigation we have” is a synonym for, “inherently necessarily beyond the scope of any naturalistic enquiry”.
Bad idea. Very bad. If you really want to assert the supernatural, you’ll need an awful lot more that “we don’t have a big enough telescope to find out whether or not it’s natural” to do the job.
So where are my Liquorice Allsorts then?
-
Vlad,
Don’t be silly. Why on earth would I hate you? I do hate (if that’s the right word) your behaviour – the dishonesty, the endless evasions, the obtuseness etc – but so far as I’m concerned there is no “you” to hate even if I was so inclined. "You" are just a four-letter moniker.
Then, as so often, your suspect wrongly
Makes no difference – you’re still confusing “phenomena which the naturalistic tools and methods we have do not explain” with, “phenomena that in their very nature inherently can never be investigated by naturalistic means”. That’s your big mistake just there.
Why, as it has nothing whatever to say to the notion of “supernatural”? "Inexplicable" and "supernatural" are not the same thing, whether or not the event is unique.
No, you are trying to dupe people into thinking that “not amenable to the naturalistic means of investigation we have” is a synonym for, “inherently necessarily beyond the scope of any naturalistic enquiry”.
Bad idea. Very bad. If you really want to assert the supernatural, you’ll need an awful lot more that “we don’t have a big enough telescope to find out whether or not it’s natural” to do the job.
So where are my Liquorice Allsorts then?
Vlad. Nobody hates you. You can't hate a name on a screen. It's not hatred: its trolling.
-
Lets not forget that most of the people in her homes won't have been Christian. Her organisation routinely engaged in non consensual baptism - I think that is counter to basic human rights.
If you had the opportunity to save someone's life, would you need their consent first?
So does the same apply to saving someone's soul?
-
AB,
If you had the opportunity to save someone's life, would you need their consent first?
Depends on the circumstances but, on balance, no.
So does the same apply to saving someone's soul?
No, because "soul" is just something you've made up without benefit of argument or evidence to validate your personal religious beliefs.
-
If you had the opportunity to save someone's life, would you need their consent first?
Depends on circumstances of course, but in principle yes. We all have the right to refuse medical treatment, including life saving treatment. So if it is possible to try to obtain consent, then that is what you must do, to allow that person to either give consent (and therefore authorise the life saving treatment) or refuse that consent in which case providing treatment against the wishes of the patient would be unlawful.
There are, of course, emergency situations, where it is impossible to obtain consent - in these cases the course of action should be that deemed to be in the patient's best interests, ideally throughout understanding what they would want. So in many cases treatment would be provided - but of course there needs to be an evidence base to support that treatment. You can't just do anything in an emergency situation.
So does the same apply to saving someone's soul?
First of course there is no evidence base to support the notion that baptism 'saves a soul' - indeed there is no evidence that there is a 'soul'.
Taking that caveat into account and applying the same principles as above there should be no baptism except with the consent of the person being baptised, as there is no credible 'best interests' justification in an emergency situation (whatever that might be) and if not emergency then consent must always be given.
-
Surely the point about non consensual baptism is that even for someone who believes in a soul it's a nonsense. If it's not consensual then the individual soul has not expressed belief. You could just as well go into the garden and throw some holy water on the ground and declare that all of the earth are now baptised. It makes a farce of claiming faith is worth anything.
-
If you had the opportunity to save someone's life, would you need their consent first?
So does the same apply to saving someone's soul?
Alan, the Church no longer teaches that physical baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
Surely the point about non consensual baptism is that even for someone who believes in a soul it's a nonsense. If it's not consensual then the individual soul has not expressed belief. You could just as well go into the garden and throw some holy water on the ground and declare that all of the earth are now baptised. It makes a farce of claiming faith is worth anything.
But wouldn't that be a problem for any infant baptism, where by definition the baby does not, and indeed cannot, give consent.
I know that some christian denominations have a problem with infant baptism, but the biggies (CofE and RCC) don't - so presumably they don't consider consent to be important in baptism.
-
But wouldn't that be a problem for any infant baptism, where by definition the baby does not, and indeed cannot, give consent.
I know that some christian denominations have a problem with infant baptism, but the biggies (CofE and RCC) don't - so presumably they don't consider consent to be important in baptism.
I think they see parents/godparents consent a essentially working here. That it's illogical surely is not removed simply because of a consistency in the illogic by certain denominations. Anyway on this basis we will all be Mormon soon.
-
If you had the opportunity to save someone's life, would you need their consent first?
So does the same apply to saving someone's soul?
So you wont mind then if in order to save your true dark soul that it is requested that call is made upon the High Spirit of the Great and Most Holy Beelzebub to baptise you spiritually into His church for now and evermore?
And that it is done in such a manner that although you will dismiss this holy calling as false and continue to deny it for as long as you live but nevertheless you will be a true Disciple of the Great Dark One for the rest of your days on this earth and you will never be able to prove that you are not.
Lo, it was always your destiny for this to occur. Do you think that you are named 'Burns' for nothing?
::)