The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Miracles as marketing > Comments

Miracles as marketing : Comments

By Rodney Crisp, published 19/10/2010

Australia has now witnessed its first two miracles and it would seem appropriate to examine the phenomenon a little closer.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Rodney Crisp has covered most issues quite well.

The 'argument from ignorance' fallacy also takes the form a premise or proposition is false because it cannot be proved true eg. ""It only signifies that science is not able to prove that the recovery is due to natural causes.""

 However, the view that ""it can hardly be considered dishonest as religion does not pretend to be scientific or even logical for that matter"" is to deny role of logic in discerning truth and reality, and thus the "denying the antecedent" fallacy.

To say ""By application of the “argument from ignorance” technique, religions usually take the precaution of allowing a large lapse of time to pass before declaring that a particular spectacular healing is due to a miracle"" is the 'confirming the consequent' fallacy, and a version of the the ""fallacy fallacy"" (Argumentum ad Logicam) whereby one invokes a fallacy to argue for or against a fallacy.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 9:27:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MacKillop's Canonization is invalid because it was done by a Heretical Anti-Pope, Der Führer von Der Vatican Reich, Herr Papst Ratslinger.
The "Holy" Roman Catholic Church has been Heretical since the Second Vatican Council wrecked the Church under the Anti-Pope Paul VI.

Another point to remember about Sainthood is that many of the "Saints" never existed, for example:
The "Virgin" Mary who was Canonized under countless titles. Then amongst those who never existed were St. Joseph, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Veronica, Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

And Jesus never existed. He was based on the Egyptian God Horus who was born of Virgin, Isis, was crucified, died and rose from the dead 3 days later. The name Jesus was taken from the Celtic God Hu-Hesus.

The "Holy" Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine I at the Council of Nicea 325CE as the official Religion of the Roman Empire for political purposes. The Bible was plagiarised from Egyptian Astrotheology and Sumerian and Balylonian Myths
Posted by Eccles64, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 10:20:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rodney Crisp:

Thanks for a clearly presented viewpoint. It would be difficult not to agree that the whole canonisation event has been imbued with marketing techniques. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing: it is the reasoning and intentions of the “marketers” that should be judged.

<<The definition of what constitutes a saint is more or less the same from one religion to another. Martyrdom is an important factor.>>

This statement is worth further consideration. I suggest that it is not “the same from one religion to another”.

“Martyrdom” is popularly used to refer to acceptance of death as a penalty for persistence in pursuing one’s faith, or for upholding one’s religious institution, or for supporting some other great cause. If we view a martyr as someone who sacrifices himself/herself to God – and this need not involve death or even physical suffering – then very many members of the Abrahamic groups you mention could be called martyrs.

Indeed, in my [Anglican] church it is part of the weekly liturgy to say: “Father, we offer ourselves to you as a living sacrifice through Jesus Christ our Lord. Send us out in the power of your Spirit to live and work to your praise and glory.” Our creed professes belief in the “communion of saints”. In other words we try to be constantly aware of the ongoing goodness that still flows from the sacrifices of the multitude of faithful servants of God in the past and to strive to be among them today. (It is nevertheless true that some people find benefit in taking particular saints as icons through whom they can more fully approach the divine.)

Anglicans do not require a hierarchical authority to declare a particular person a “saint”. As I understand it the Roman Catholic view is the opposite, as exemplified by the Mary MacKillop canonisation. In saying this, of course, I intend merely to point to a difference between the two rather than declare one superior.
Posted by crabsy, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 2:02:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And how much did this exercise waste?

The new 'saint' would be turning in her grave.

What would she have done with the millions spent? not on a fancy dress party.

It is an example of how the church is out of touch with the real world.
Posted by PeterA, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 3:13:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that both opponents and defenders of miracles accept a modern, western interpretation of miracles as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent” (Hume’s definition). Such definitions define the miraculous as something that appears to violate the laws of science. This leaves not just atheists but large numbers of intelligent believers unable to accept a model that has God periodically, but rarely, overturning the scientific order in order to prove a point.

This misses the point of miracles in scriptures, which were written by people who did not share our modern sharp dichotomy between the natural and supernatural, science and theology. Peter Sellick has written extensively and intelligently in Online Opinion of the dangers of overlaying a modern or postmodern scientific worldview on premodern thinking – see for example

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6156&page=0
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 3:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As has already been pointed out elsewhere, Mary McKillop has conspicuously failed to save thousands of other cancer patients and sufferers from terminal illness who prayed to her: her success rate, in fact, is well below 1%. Any doctor or surgeon with a similar record would have been drummed out of their profession long ago, yet this hopeless and pathetic failure is actually canonised by the Catholic Church! Truly they must be getting desperate.

Whatever happened to the saints who could sew their own heads back on, conjure bags of gold or make it rain frogs? THOSE were the days! A couple of dubious cancer cures wouldn't have even rated a mention in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 4:55:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy