Post by element771 on Aug 5, 2008 20:35:08 GMT
Hi,
First just wanted to say that I am enjoying posting on a forum that actively deals with science and religion in a civilized way.
Anyway.....
I was wondering if you guys / girls could give your opinions on a couple of issues that I have been pondering as of late.
1. Miracles - There are many claims of miraculous healing and events even today. How do you guys deal with them? Being a science driven type of person, I find them hard to believe simply because often times N=1. Also, I am skeptical more of people lying and deceiving than I am of actual miracles occurring.
2. Exorcism - I am of two minds on the topic. Part of me wants more evidence and thinks that some of the particpants of the exorcisms can be exagerating, mistaken, or making up events in order to make a theological point (the point being that they feel that they need to make the public fear evil and they should do this by any means possible including making false / exagerated statements).
On the other hand, I find that a lot of the testimonies are too readily dismissed by a lot of skeptics. Two books on the subject by Gabrielle Amorth and Malachi Martin come to mind. If you read the criticisms, they often use ad hom attacks in order to discredit the authors of the testimonies. Unfortunately these attacks do a good job of poisoning the well...at least enough to make me doubt their authenticity.
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835
Dr. Richard E. Gallagher documents an exorcism. This guy is a professional with a lot to loose....why would he do this if it were not legit?
3. Stigmata - Again same with exorcism. There are a lot of claims that seem pretty spectacular but I still wonder if they are believable.
4. Near Death Experiences - Dr. Gary Habermas seems to have documented a lot of veridical cases that seem to support the notion of life after death. Credibility is once again the key. The evidence is there but what do you make of it.
I have seen a lot of ultra-skeptics that shrug these cases and evidence off like it was nothing. Can we do that with every case?
All of these mentioned above are reported by external witnesses that have been supposedly corroborated. It is not like these are all internal constructs of an individuals imagination.
Thanks for the thoughts.
First just wanted to say that I am enjoying posting on a forum that actively deals with science and religion in a civilized way.
Anyway.....
I was wondering if you guys / girls could give your opinions on a couple of issues that I have been pondering as of late.
1. Miracles - There are many claims of miraculous healing and events even today. How do you guys deal with them? Being a science driven type of person, I find them hard to believe simply because often times N=1. Also, I am skeptical more of people lying and deceiving than I am of actual miracles occurring.
2. Exorcism - I am of two minds on the topic. Part of me wants more evidence and thinks that some of the particpants of the exorcisms can be exagerating, mistaken, or making up events in order to make a theological point (the point being that they feel that they need to make the public fear evil and they should do this by any means possible including making false / exagerated statements).
On the other hand, I find that a lot of the testimonies are too readily dismissed by a lot of skeptics. Two books on the subject by Gabrielle Amorth and Malachi Martin come to mind. If you read the criticisms, they often use ad hom attacks in order to discredit the authors of the testimonies. Unfortunately these attacks do a good job of poisoning the well...at least enough to make me doubt their authenticity.
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835
Dr. Richard E. Gallagher documents an exorcism. This guy is a professional with a lot to loose....why would he do this if it were not legit?
3. Stigmata - Again same with exorcism. There are a lot of claims that seem pretty spectacular but I still wonder if they are believable.
4. Near Death Experiences - Dr. Gary Habermas seems to have documented a lot of veridical cases that seem to support the notion of life after death. Credibility is once again the key. The evidence is there but what do you make of it.
I have seen a lot of ultra-skeptics that shrug these cases and evidence off like it was nothing. Can we do that with every case?
All of these mentioned above are reported by external witnesses that have been supposedly corroborated. It is not like these are all internal constructs of an individuals imagination.
Thanks for the thoughts.