Randi not dealing with religious paranormal?

[Roboramma]

You could get people to pray for the remission of the illness of a number of different people. If they showed significantly more cases of spontaneous remission than a control group who were not prayed for.. well, there'd be some evidence.

However it seems that in every attempt to do so no effect caused by the prayer could be deduced (expect in the case of badly or fraudulently designed experiements). Odd, that. I guess god only listens when no one's watching.

 

[PatKelley]

There are people who simply respond differently, who succumb rapidly, who are able to sustain greivous injury and survive; these are not restricted to people of faith. This is a case of confirmation bias, already extensively covered, and confusing correlation with causation. There are many in dire straits who have prayed to all of these and more; many simply get no "answer" or change in their condition. We somehow only hear about the successes?

It's nothing new. The religious underpinnings behind it are like any other theory of the paranormal; the Challenge doesn't care why you think it works, just that it works as you describe it: see objects underground, detect disease unaided, and so on.

 

[Matteo Martini]

At the risk of being flippant, well, whoopty-do for the Vatican Medical Commitee!



And what would studying reports prove? "Yup, they went into spontaneous remission. Wacky." There's no report by any medical body I've ever heard of that can prove "Oh, hey, angels did this!" The absolute best that you could get from a medical report would be "Unexplained and unexpected remission." That doesn't prove ANYTHING about causes. It could be God or demons or aliens or fuzzy pink unicorns or the FSM. There is no test for the residue of a miracle!

The only claim that these people made which one could determine from reports is "I went into remission." There is no way to prove the ultimate REASON for remission, and thus determine whether that reason is indeed supernatural.

Here's a question for you--how would you construct a conclusive test of whether a spontaneous remission was caused by miracle vs by some other source, including plain dumb luck?

I see that I have not cleared my point enough.
I will try once more.
I have NOT said that the studies of the Vatican Medical Committee prove that the " miracles " are, indeed, " miracles "!!
I have said that studies of the Vatican Medical Committee CLAIM to have reasonable proof that the " miracles " have no other explanation other than that of a supernatural intervention.
Since this is a bold claim about a CLAIMED paranormal event, I think Randi should devote some of his attention to it.
It is strange to see why he does not do this.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It's nothing new. The religious underpinnings behind it are like any other theory of the paranormal; the Challenge doesn't care why you think it works, just that it works as you describe it: see objects underground, detect disease unaided, and so on.

I have already said it before but I will said it again:
1) Randi does not only deal with claims that are specifically targeted to the Challenge, but devotes much of his time to discuss general topics about the paranormal and claims, as read in newspapers, TV and so on, which come from people/institutions which have no plan to take on the Challenge;
2) Since the Catholic Church makes specific and official claims about the paranormal, even if it does not apply for the Challenge, it is strange to see that Randi does not deal with such claims.

 

[StoatBringer]

People recover from apparently terminal conditions all the time. There are many possible explanations, of which "miracle" is just one.

What you would need is something which simply cannot be explained by medical science, i.e. there is absolutely NO POSSIBILITY that it could conceivably have occured naturally. Like a severed limb regrowing, or a massive injury healing instantly.

All the common anecdotes like "My cousin's friend had a broken leg, and we prayed, and the next day it was healed" are simply not verifiable and could even be explained as a case of human error (X-rays getting mixed up, etc.). People get better from illnesses, even when doctors predict the worst. This does not demonstrate a miracle.

Give us someone who (for example) was well-documented as being born with no eyes, one arm and one leg, who instantly grew eyes and limbs as a result of prayer. Surely such a simple thing is not beyond an omnipotent deity?

 

[UrsulaV]

It is strange to see why he does not do this.

This may be a blatantly obvious observation, and I could be dead wrong, but--he's not a medical doctor. Any such analysis would rely on doctors studying the situation and then giving him a report.

Sleight of hand, cold-reading, magician style tricks--this is stuff Randi knows first-hand, intimately, and can spot with great ease. Stuff like weeping statues definitely fall into that, as a "How do they do that?" kinda thing. But the medical miracles you're describing, he can't know first hand what's possible and what's unlikely, he'd have to rely on doctors he trusted giving him an analysis.

Maybe he doesn't debunk many medical miracle healings because he doesn't have the neccessary firsthand expertise, and prefers to concentrate primarily on things that he knows about?

 

[Matteo Martini]

People recover from apparently terminal conditions all the time. There are many possible explanations, of which "miracle" is just one.

What you would need is something which simply cannot be explained by medical science, i.e. there is absolutely NO POSSIBILITY that it could conceivably have occured naturally. Like a severed limb regrowing, or a massive injury healing instantly.

All the common anecdotes like "My cousin's friend had a broken leg, and we prayed, and the next day it was healed" are simply not verifiable and could even be explained as a case of human error (X-rays getting mixed up, etc.). People get better from illnesses, even when doctors predict the worst. This does not demonstrate a miracle.

Give us someone who (for example) was well-documented as being born with no eyes, one arm and one leg, who instantly grew eyes and limbs as a result of prayer. Surely such a simple thing is not beyond an omnipotent deity?

OK, you do not have to convince me, it is the Church which states that the " miracle " is a " miracle ".
And millions of Catholics believe this.
If the explanation of the miracle is so down-to-Earth as you suggest, why does Randi not set up a commentary dedicated to these events writing down the same considerations that you state here?

 

[Matteo Martini]

This may be a blatantly obvious observation, and I could be dead wrong, but--he's not a medical doctor. Any such analysis would rely on doctors studying the situation and then giving him a report.

Sleight of hand, cold-reading, magician style tricks--this is stuff Randi knows first-hand, intimately, and can spot with great ease. Stuff like weeping statues definitely fall into that, as a "How do they do that?" kinda thing. But the medical miracles you're describing, he can't know first hand what's possible and what's unlikely, he'd have to rely on doctors he trusted giving him an analysis.

Maybe he doesn't debunk many medical miracle healings because he doesn't have the neccessary firsthand expertise, and prefers to concentrate primarily on things that he knows about?

As far as I know, Randi is not an electronic engineer either, however try to read the commentary of this week: http://www.randi.org/jr/200512/12095intelligent.html#i1

 

[UrsulaV]

Then if none of our explanations are sufficiently satisfying to you, perhaps you should simply e-mail the gentleman and ask him? I mean, we've explained a great many reasons why debunking this sort of thing is halfway to impossible, but if you're not happy with it, go to the source!

 

[Matteo Martini]

Then if none of our explanations are sufficiently satisfying to you, perhaps you should simply e-mail the gentleman and ask him? I mean, we've explained a great many reasons why debunking this sort of thing is halfway to impossible, but if you're not happy with it, go to the source!

I have also provided many reasons and evidence tu show why Randi should deal with the claims above.
They are public claims on paranormal made by an authoritative source and supported by ( claimed ) medical evidence.
I have already received by him an answer about this subject, but it was a generic answer that left me not satisfied.
In my opinion, the reasons are others

 

[Dancing David]

OK, you do not have to convince me, it is the Church which states that the " miracle " is a " miracle ".
And millions of Catholics believe this.
If the explanation of the miracle is so down-to-Earth as you suggest, why does Randi not set up a commentary dedicated to these events writing down the same considerations that you state here?

Because the representatives of the church may be media figures but unlike Sylvia Brown and John Edwards they are not speading thier fradulent claims far and wide.
Secondly, the church is very careful to never make any spectatcular claims that these miracles are happening right now, they all happened in the past and the substantiation of the claims does not and can not rise to the level of the challenge.

If you search the comentaries on the forum, I am sure Randi has taken on the church in the past.

 

[Darat]

I have also provided many reasons and evidence tu show why Randi should deal with the claims above.
They are public claims on paranormal made by an authoritative source and supported by ( claimed ) medical evidence.
I have already received by him an answer about this subject, but it was a generic answer that left me not satisfied.
In my opinion, the reasons are others

So email him again and tell him you don't believe the reasons he's given you and that "the reasons are others".

 

[Matteo Martini]

Because the representatives of the church may be media figures but unlike Sylvia Brown and John Edwards they are not speading thier fradulent claims far and wide.

I have provided the links to the official site of the Vatican ( in six languages!! )
In English:
" The miracle was the cure of Dr. Manuel Nevado from cancerous chronic radiodermatitis, an incurable disease, which took place in November 1992. The decree opened the doors for the canonization of Blessed Josemaria. "
http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html
In French: http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_fr.html
In Spanish: http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_sp.html
In German: http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_ge.html

From the press:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,577830,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2303247.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/22/wsaint22.xml
http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&a=1561

Secondly, the church is very careful to never make any spectatcular claims that these miracles are happening right now, they all happened in the past and the substantiation of the claims does not and can not rise to the level of the challenge.

Again, please refer to the link above, it is in the Vatican web site.
I think it is pretty clear and straightforward.
And the point that the events took place in the past is not the main point, in my opinion, the Church claims that with the evidence available today it is possible to state that the event is a " miracle "

If you search the comentaries on the forum, I am sure Randi has taken on the church in the past.

Not one commentary about the above claims

 

[Matteo Martini]

So email him again and tell him you don't believe the reasons he's given you and that "the reasons are others".

I do not want to push Randi to deal with events he does not feel confortable to deal with.
Still he is leaving out big claims on paranormal

 

[Darat]

I do not want to push Randi to deal with events he does not feel confortable to deal with.
Still he is leaving out big claims on paranormal

In your opinion.

 

[Matteo Martini]

In your opinion.

In my opinion he is leaving out the claims on the miracles or in my opinion the claims on the miracles are big?

 

[Darat]

In my opinion he is leaving out the claims on the miracles or in my opinion the claims on the miracles are big?

Neither - I was referring to the statement: "I do not want to push Randi to deal with events he does not feel confortable to deal with. specifically the underlined bit which is merely your opinion, which as several of us have shown is not borne out by the evidence.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Neither - I was referring to the statement: "I do not want to push Randi to deal with events he does not feel confortable to deal with. specifically the underlined bit which is merely your opinion, which as several of us have shown is not borne out by the evidence.

OK, that was my assumption based on the evidence that Randi has never dedicated a commentary to the " miracles " which fostered the Sainthood of Padre Pio, Escriva` Balaguer, Mother Theresa, etc.
I do not know which is the reason, I just made an assumption

 

[Tricky]

Randi has commented on this from time to time, and as I recall, the reason miracles aren't tested is because of the difficulty of setting up a test. First of all, you have to get a number of people with nearly identical conditions in order that the results be statistically significant. Then you must get written declarations by independant doctors certifying that the patients all have the condition and that spontaneous remission is very unlikely. Then you must have them agree to abandon medical treatment so that there won't be any confusion as to what caused the "miracle" (and this step is a big stopper, because to ask someone to go off their meds is highly unethical). Then you must be certain that the patients are "cured" by doing lots of follow-up.

All in all, it is not the sort of test that Randi can do, even if it were ethical. Now if the miracles could be something obvious (as StoatBringer suggests), like regrowing severed limbs or giving Jean Claude Van Damme the ability to act, it would be a lot easier to judge.

 

[sophia8]

Furthermore make a reality check : HOW MANY so called miracle is there per year ? Now picture the number of people getting ill. Let us think that the probability of spontaneous remission based on their immune/health system is a normal population. I bet you would then expect a poisson curve which is centered depending on the illness (grave illness : centered on low value for low probability of immune system fighting succesfully, common cold would be centered on the highier value of spontaneous remission). The gist of it is that no matter the curve, out of a big population, you will have people on the less populated part of the curve. In other word a few people will die of common cold, and a few people will spontaneously remiss of cancer. I can see people speaking of miracle in case of remiss, but then what do they call dying of common cold ? A not-so-good miracle ? The work of Satan ? This is pure middle age here.

I wish i could remember where I saw it, but some years ago I read about a study of "miraculous" cures from cancer in people who had visited Lourdes which showed that the proportion of certified-miracle cancer cures was actually less than the rate of spontaneous remission from cancer in the general population.
The authors of the study pointed out that the finding could be explained by the fact that most of the cancer victims who go to Lourdes are likely to be in the terminal stages of the illness. But even so....