At The Stream: Peer reviewed study of a miracle

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 24, 2020

Intelligent Design, Medicine}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We don’t see this every day:

The study details the medical history of a woman who was blind for more than a dozen years from juvenile macular degeneration, an incurable condition. She had attended a school for the blind, used a white cane for mobility, and read braille.
One night at bedtime her husband, a Baptist pastor, got on his knees to pray. He put a hand on her shoulder as she laid on the bed. They were both crying as he prayed: “Oh, God! You can restore … eyesight tonight, Lord. I know you can do it! And I pray you will do it tonight.”
With that, she opened her eyes and saw her husband kneeling in front of her. “I was blind when my husband prayed for me,” she said. “Then just like this — in a moment, after years of darkness I could see perfectly. It was miraculous! … Within seconds, my life had drastically changed. I could see, I could see!”
The woman’s eyesight has remained intact for 47 years since the “proximal intercessory prayer” (PIP) — that is, Christian prayer for healing with accompanying touch.
Lee Strobel, “Does Science Support Miracles? New Study Documents a Blind Woman’s Healing” at The Stream

The paper is open access.

Hope nobody gets driven from the field just for reporting this stuff.

Strobel goes on to talk about other apparently confirmed cases. His book, The Case for Miracles, is now in paperback.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

Daves @ 3 70,000 saw the Miracles of the Sun including atheists.buffalo_{May 25, 2020
May
05
May
25
25
2020
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Rex Gardner, BMJ December 1983 -- I originally made a special trip to get that article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550198/kairosfocus_{May 25, 2020
May
05
May
25
25
2020
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

And, to put this in context, how many times did people pray for cures and nothing happened? I think time is ripe for a definition: "meaningless absurd rhetorical question" - A rhetorical question that feigns a requirement for a specific answer which human beings have no chance of providing and which additionally has no philosophical relevance as a rejoinder. Possibly meaningful rhetorical question - would anyone be even interested beyond noting that meaningless rhetorical question is driven by philosophical commitment?groovamos_{May 25, 2020
May
05
May
25
25
2020
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

I think miracles could be very strong evidence for the existence of a god. The problem is, you really have to witness one firsthand for it to be very persuasive. If I observed my coffee cup hover in midair for 10 minutes then gently settle back on its coaster, I would immediately be convinced that my worldview is very wrong. If I told someone about what I saw, I wouldn't expect them to be impressed. They'd probably think I was high. Which is a sensible conclusion. I mean, not that I take illicit drugs...daveS_{May 25, 2020
May
05
May
25
25
2020
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Seversky states,
And, to put this in context, how many times did people pray for cures and nothing happened?
So Seversky, are you admitting that miracles, though rare, are still possible? Your comment, taken at face value, seems to imply just that. But should not you, as a former Christian now turned Atheist, (i.e. a former Christian who now believes in 'science' instead of Christianity), resolutely hold that miracles, no matter how rare or common they may be, are still, as far as science itself is concerned, absolutely impossible? Should not you. as an Atheist, an Atheist who now champions 'science' over your former Christianity, give us your specific scientific reasons for why you believe miracles to be absolutely impossible? I guess I can see why you would gripe about miracles being rare, instead of you giving us your specific scientific reason(s) for why miracles are absolutely impossible. Science simply does not support your apriori atheistic claim that miracles are absolutely impossible. For instance,,,
“I became a Christian theist not in spite of being a scientist but because of it.” – Günter Bechly - former curator for amber and fossil insects in the department of paleontology at the State Museum of Natural History (SMNS) in Stuttgart, Germany, until he dared question Darwinian evolution.
David Hume, an atheistic philosopher of the 1700s, tried to give us a specific 'scientific' reason for why he thought miracles to be absolutely impossible. Specifically David Hume stated that, “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; ”
“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and because firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the case against a miracle is—just because it is a miracle—as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined to be.” – David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748
Likewise, in the 1990s biologist Richard Lewontin stated the 'scientific' claim against miracles this way.
"To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. " - Richard Lewontin
The trouble for David Hume in the 1700s, for Lewontin in the 1990s, and for you now in the present Seversky, in trying to scientifically prove that miracles are absolutely impossible because they would supposedly be 'a violation of the laws of nature', is that the laws of nature, in and of themselves, are to be considered miraculous. In fact, if atheists were honest, (which would be a miracle in its own right), then atheists would honestly admit that they simply have no clue why there should even be universal laws that govern the universe in the first place:
“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes - UD blogger
The Christian founders of modern science certainly did not view the laws of nature as being 'natural' but viewed them as being, "God's abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God."
"All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God's handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God's abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God - an exhilarating and audacious claim." - Paul Davies - quoted from an address following his award of the $1 million Templeton Prize in 1995 for progress in science and religion.
In fact, the first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton’s realization, (via his Christian presupposition of a God Who is sovereign over the entire universe), that “the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth”,,
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation Excerpt: The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton’s realization that the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth. This universal force would also act between the planets and the Sun, providing a common explanation for both terrestrial and astronomical phenomena. https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=3
Upon discovering the universal law of gravitation, Sir Isaac Newton then stated the 'miraculous' explanation for the universal law of Gravity this way: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One;,,,”
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”: – Sir Isaac Newton – “Principia”
Again. atheists simply have no clue why there should even be universal laws, much less do they have a right to presuppose that the laws of nature are completely natural. Einstein himself considered the comprehensibility of the universe, a comprehensibility that is afforded to us by the universal laws of nature, to be a miracle in its own right and even chastised 'professional atheists, in the process of calling it a miracle.
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
Likewise, Eugene Wigner also stated, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,”
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Moreover, if, in the 1990s, Lewontin discounted miracles simply because he feared that "at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen",,,
"To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. " - Richard Lewontin
,,,, if, in the 1990s, Lewontin discounted miracles simply because he feared that "at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen", then Lewontin should be absolutely flabbergasted today that multiverse cosmologists are basically proposing 'random miracles' as an explanatory principle in science in order to try to 'explain away' the origin and fine-tuning of the laws of nature. In short, in their appeal to multiverses in order to try to 'explain away' the laws of nature, no absurdity is now beyond the pale for atheists and, indeed, as Lewontin himself feared, in now turns out that, on the premises of atheism itself, "at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." As Dr Craig explains, " if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds."
Multiverse and the Design Argument - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument
And as Dr Gordon further explains, "In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle." (whereas) "In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose."
The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as an explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. - Dr. Bruce Gordon - as stated on the last slide on the following video,,, - The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff_sNyGNSko
Moreover, as bad as the laws of nature are, in and of themselves, for the atheist's claim that miracles are impossible, recent developments in quantum mechanics goes one step further and shows us, basically, that the existence of the entire universe is dependent on God's providence for the 'continual miracle' of its continued existence. Here is a quote from a MIT professor that brings this point home:
Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html
Thus in conclusion, although Seversky may gripe that miracles may be too rare for his personal liking, i.e. "how many times did people pray for cures and nothing happened?", I say "So what Seversly?, Miracles, whether they are considered rare or commonplace, are proof, in and of themselves, for God's divine actions in the world regardless of how prevalent they may be." Moreover Seversky, you, nor any other atheist, has ever offered any compelling scientific reason for why we should believe miracles to be impossible. In fact, the 'scientific' reason usually offered by atheists against miracles, i.e. 'a violation of the laws of nature' turns out to be proof for miracles in their own right, and thus defeats the atheist's supposedly scientific claim that miracles are impossible. In short, Seversky, as usual, you have no argument.
Job 38:33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you establish its dominion over the earth?
Of supplemental note: here is a fascinating interview with Craig Keener, author of a highly praised 'scholarly' book on miracles:
Miracles: Keener's Reflections - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE6sDPPQ7WA Description: Dr. Craig Keener, author of "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts" discusses in this web series some of the accounts of people being raised from the dead and people being healed of sicknesses from around the world. It's Okay to Expect a Miracle | Christianity Today - Keener Excerpt: I got seven eyewitness accounts of people being raised from the dead. One was my sister-in-law, Therese. I asked my mother-in-law to tell me about it, with my wife translating from one of the local languages. My mother-in-law described how Therese was bitten by a snake. By the time my mother-in-law got to her, she wasn't breathing. No medical help was available. She strapped the child to her back and ran to a nearby village, where a friend who was an evangelist prayed for Therese. She started breathing again. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/december/okay-to-expect-miracle.html?
bornagain77_{May 25, 2020
May
05
May
25
25
2020
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

And, to put this in context, how many times did people pray for cures and nothing happened?Seversky_{May 24, 2020
May
05
May
24
24
2020
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply