Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on September 07, 2025, 02:46:19 PM
-
Sad story and yet you can't write satire as good as this
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg5me8dvlo
-
Very sad that he died so young - this 'saint' thing seems positively medieval, and the 'proven miracles' bit sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Surprised that anyone takes this seriously in this day and age.
-
Very sad that he died so young - this 'saint' thing seems positively medieval, and the 'proven miracles' bit sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Surprised that anyone takes this seriously in this day and age.
I have to confess that I was very sceptical about how a 15 year old computer geek could have done enough to be declared a saint by the RC church. However, since learning more about his remarkable story I have come to conclude that he does merit his canonisation.
The thing about having such a modern day saint is that there are many eye witness accounts available which detail the truly miraculous events emanating from his short life in this earth. You can hear such witness stories in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUpqQneSOFM . To dispute an eye witness account you need to accuse the witness of deliberately lying or somehow show that they were deluded.
We recently had one of Carlo's relics presented in our local church, together with a talk given by his governess who told how he brought his own family and members of his household back into the Christian faith. The event was very well attended with standing room only.
He dedicated his short life to getting people to turn away from being self centred and encourage them to be God centred, and the documentary given above testifies to his successes worldwide in bringing many into the Christian faith and deepening the faith of many others.
-
I have to confess that I was very sceptical about how a 15 year old computer geek could have done enough to be declared a saint by the RC church. However, since learning more about his remarkable story I have come to conclude that he does merit his canonisation.
The thing about having such a modern day saint is that there are many eye witness accounts available which detail the truly miraculous events emanating from his short life in this earth. You can hear such witness stories in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUpqQneSOFM . To dispute an eye witness account you need to accuse the witness of deliberately lying or somehow show that they were deluded.
We recently had one of Carlo's relics presented in our local church, together with a talk given by his governess who told how he brought his own family and members of his household back into the Christian faith. The event was very well attended with standing room only.
He dedicated his short life to getting people to turn away from being self centred and encourage them to be God centred, and the documentary given above testifies to his successes worldwide in bringing many into the Christian faith and deepening the faith of many others.
As ever you have no methodology for your supernatural claims so they are specious.
-
The thing about having such a modern day saint is that there are many eye witness accounts available which detail the truly miraculous events emanating from his short life in this earth. You can hear such witness stories in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUpqQneSOFM . To dispute an eye witness account you need to accuse the witness of deliberately lying or somehow show that they were deluded.
Doesn't fly, Alan: anecdotal reports from people who are are predisposed to believe religious claims of supernatural intervention are worthless as evidence of saintly 'cause and effect' miracle claims - there is no method to test these claims.
We recently had one of Carlo's relics presented in our local church, together with a talk given by his governess who told how he brought his own family and members of his household back into the Christian faith. The event was very well attended with standing room only.
The notion of relics is bizarre - but then so are notions of saints and miracles.
He dedicated his short life to getting people to turn away from being self centred and encourage them to be God centred, and the documentary given above testifies to his successes worldwide in bringing many into the Christian faith and deepening the faith of many others.
Not sure that is necessarily a good thing.
-
As ever you have no methodology for your supernatural claims so they are specious.
I don't know about "No methodology" or whether there is any mileage in asking you to justify your positive assertion.
Given that I think there might be an office for this within the Vatican which operates a methodical system of criteria to pass or fail miracles, What is lacking in that for you to discount the methods used?
-
I don't know about "No methodology" or whether there is any mileage in asking you to justify your positive assertion.
Given that I think there might be an office for this within the Vatican which operates a methodical system of criteria to pass or fail miracles, What is lacking in that for you to discount the methods used?
How do you determine that the cause is supernatural? I've asked you for this method over a thousand times. And it's never been proivided. Note I've never said there can't be such a methodology - which would be a positive assertion. The point is the claim here is Alan's that there are miracles, the burden of proof lies with that.
-
Hiw di you determine that the cause is supernatural? Cammi'vw asked you fir thus merhid tover a thousand times. And it's never been prmrivided. Note I've never said thete can't be such a methodology - which would be a positive assertion. The point is the claim here is Alan's that there are miracles the burden of proof lies with that.
The provision of the method or otherwise is completely separate from your assertion that there is no methodology.
This assertion gives you the burden of proof.
Immediately if what you are saying boils down to God is unfalsifiable. This was agreed as far as I can remember on this board ages ago then you, whether to revive some kind of debate seemed to then focus on methodology with no more justification than to ask one to provide one.
Here is an analysis on how the Vatican go about deciding whether a miracle occurs. It seems like a method to me.
https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/what-is-a-miracle/
Now instead of getting angry please state why the Vaticans method is not a method.
-
Given that I think there might be an office for this within the Vatican which operates a methodical system of criteria to pass or fail miracles, What is lacking in that for you to discount the methods used?
What is lacking, Vlad, is any information about any criteria and/or methods that are used by the Vatican to ratify or reject miracle claims.
-
Now instead of getting angry
As assertions go, that one is an absolute banger. Well done for detecting anger where I can see no evidence of it. It will make me more alert in future for more examples of non-anger.
-
What is lacking, Vlad, is any information about any criteria and/or methods that are used by the Vatican to ratify or reject miracle claims.
Again, deflection from Sane's claim that there is no methodology. It's his claim, the onus is on him.
-
Here is an analysis on how the Vatican go about deciding whether a miracle occurs. It seems like a method to me.
https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/what-is-a-miracle/
Now instead of getting angry please state why the Vaticans method is not a method.
Because it is essentially an 'argument from ignorance' assertion - 'a bunch of us don't know why this happened therefore it must be a miracle due to divine intervention by one of the plethora of saints that the RC created'. Where is the cause and effect link, and what mechanism is involved?
Do these miracles get documented in peer-review medical journals? My impression is, and I may have the wrong impression, is that the RC are marking their own homework.
-
The provision of the method or otherwise is completely separate from your assertion that there is no methodology.
This assertion gives you the burden of proof.
Immediately if what you are saying boils down to God is unfalsifiable. This was agreed as far as I can remember on this board ages ago then you, whether to revive some kind of debate seemed to then focus on methodology with no more justification than to ask one to provide one.
Here is an analysis on how the Vatican go about deciding whether a miracle occurs. It seems like a method to me.
https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/what-is-a-miracle/
Now instead of getting angry please state why the Vaticans method is not a method.
i'm not angry my littke cauliflower, but again you misunderstanding the burden of proof. Iy is for thise to show that there is a methodology and it works. Note there's an extra problem hete footer thd claim though. Since it8 amounts to philipsophical supernatiralism. The methodology for naturalism is one that has no need to claim that the cause is natiralistic, just that the approach works and is based on n assumption. The claim for supernatuaral events is one that claims that the cause is supernatural.
Essentially the problem with the Vatican approach, note one that is not accepted by many Christian denominations, is that in order to rule put out all possible natural explanations you would need to be omniscient.since they aren't, that falls.
-
As assertions go, that one is an absolute banger. Well done for detecting anger where I can see no evidence of it. It will make me more alert in future for more examples of non-anger.
Calm down.
-
Again, deflection from Sane's claim that there is no methodology. It's his claim, the onus is on him.
There isn't one, else you'd have told us all about it long before now - stop being silly.
The burden of proof thing has always been a mystery to you.
-
Again, deflection from Sane's claim that there is no methodology. It's his claim, the onus is on him.
It would help if you read posts. I haven't ruled out that there could be one which is why I ask for one. I've explained again in a later post why the Vatican one fails, and noted that it fails for many Christian denominations as well. The burden of proof rests with thise making miracle claims.
-
It would help if you read posts. I haven't ruled out that there could be one which is why I ask for one. I've explained again in a later post why the Vatican one fails, and noted that it fails for many Christian denominations as well. The burden of proof rests with thise making miracle claims.
Your argument though is problematic though for anyone invoking the term "Supernatural". A term I've described as not at all useful.
I'm not sure though that your dependence on a "may be" I.e.scientism helps your case against the Vatican having a method.
-
I'm not sure though that your dependence on a "may be" I.e.scientism helps your case against the Vatican having a method.
They don't have a method though that would be robust enough to exclude all possible naturalistic causes accounting for an alleged miraculous recovery from an established medical state: just fallacious assertions involving ignorance and magical thinking (we don't understand, therefore it's Saint Whomever wot dun it) mixed with a large skoosh of confirmation bias.
-
Your argument though is problematic though for anyone invoking the term "Supernatural". A term I've described as not at all useful.
I'm not sure though that your dependence on a "may be" I.e.scientism helps your case against the Vatican having a method.
I do not believe in 'scientism'. It would help if you didn't lie about what people think so consistently. Indeed as the board's ardent Humean, as you have so often noted, using scientism to describe what I think is ludicrous.
If yoh want to use another term other than supernatural feel to suggest ine and why but the problem you will still have is that the 'methodology' suggested by the Vatican is about ruling all possible natural causes which commits them to claiming omniscience, and to be philosophical 'insertyournewsuggestedtermhereists'.
-
I do not believe in 'scientism'. It would help if you didn't lie about what people think so consistently. Indeed as the board's ardent Humean, as you have so often noted, using scientism to describe what I think is ludicrous.
If yoh want to use another term other than supernatural feel to suggest ine and why but the problem you will still have is that the 'methodology' suggested by the Vatican is about ruling all possible natural causes which commits them to claiming omniscience, and to be philosophical 'insertyournewsuggestedtermhereists'.
As a follow on from this, the Vatican's approach has a whiff of one part philosophical naturalism, combined with philosophical 'insertVladspreferredtermfornonnatiraleventsism', since they are accepting that in the events that are not miracles that they are natural and happen because of natural causes.
-
The problem though is when one says "We can't know that something is supernatural" while at the same time stating that a particular thing cannot be considered because it is Supernatural. This is the problem with the term Supernatural especially when there are other more sensible ways of describing the philosophical divide vis "falsifiable vs unfalsifiable.
-
I do not believe in 'scientism'. It would help if you didn't lie about what people think so consistently. Indeed as the board's ardent Humean, as you have so often noted, using scientism to describe what I think is ludicrous.
If yoh want to use another term other than supernatural feel to suggest ine and why but the problem you will still have is that the 'methodology' suggested by the Vatican is about ruling all possible natural causes which commits them to claiming omniscience, and to be philosophical 'insertyournewsuggestedtermhereists'.
You don't, though have to be a believer in scientism in order to blunder into it. If you are saying "always look for the scientific answer and ignore the rest" that IMV is shaking hands
With scientism.
-
Very sad that he died so young - this 'saint' thing seems positively medieval, and the 'proven miracles' bit sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Surprised that anyone takes this seriously in this day and age.
Agree tragic to die so young.
But I think the who saint thing is rather interesting and enlightening. I suspect a lot of people think of saints as people where there is some clear divine element to their sainthood. But what this shows is simply that sainthood or otherwise is in the hands of a very non-divine process involving committees of people arguing over highly subjective box ticking on 'miracles'. So very much in the patronage of humans, and largely (or even exclusively) a highly select and biased bunch of old men.
-
And the special pleading on 'miracles' is rather astonishing. So from the article:
'"A woman with breast cancer prayed (for) Carlo and she had to start chemotherapy and the cancer disappeared completely," she explains.'
A 'miracle' - err no ... she was on chemotherapy which is specifically aimed a making cancer disappear (or complete pathological response). So err 'miracle' or evidence based medicine. And the lack of perspective is astonishing - so this person's complete pathological response is a 'miracle' because she prayed (rather than the chemotherapy), but Carlo died of leukaemia and I have no doubt that he and others would have prayed for his recovery.
-
You don't, though have to be a believer in scientism in order to blunder into it. If you are saying "always look for the scientific answer and ignore the rest" that IMV is shaking hands
With scientism.
Which i didn't. However if you are claiming an answer that is not methodoligically naturalistic, you would need a methodology. I pointed out where this fails in its own terns.
-
The problem though is when one says "We can't know that something is supernatural" while at the same time stating that a particular thing cannot be considered because it is Supernatural. This is the problem with the term Supernatural especially when there are other more sensible ways of describing the philosophical divide vis "falsifiable vs unfalsifiable.
Arse backwards if the claim is to it being supernatural, which this is by the RCs, then the burden of proof would lie on them. I've pointed out where within their own terms that fails.
-
Which i didn't. However if you are claiming an answer that is not methodoligically naturalistic, you would need a methodology. I pointed out where this fails in its own terns.
What I am saying is my understanding of the term Supernaturalis that it derives from the early naturalist who were keen for dividing processes they considered completely separate from divine considerations and the direct interventions of God.
That there was an explanation based on causation rather than agency.
So rather than pinning the awkwardness of this term on Catholics perhaps you should look elsewhere. Perhaps to people of your own jib who tend to use the term "Supernatural" as a pejorative.
-
What I am saying is my understanding of the term Supernaturalis that it derives from the early naturalist who were keen for dividing processes they considered completely separate from divine considerations and the direct interventions of God.
That there was an explanation based on causation rather than agency.
So rather than pinning the awkwardness of this term on Catholics perhaps you should look elsewhere. Perhaps to people of your own jib who tend to use the term "Supernatural" as a pejorative.
See previous answers about it not mattering what you call it. The claim that it is not natural which is tge vasis of what the RCs are doing is .based around a claim to omniscience which they are not. I also think your understanding is incorrect bit irrelevant