pelican,
I think you are right pointing out the gist of the article in your quote, although I think you misunderstood the author if you thought he wanted to convert you (or I misunderstood you). I at least read the article as an explanation of the contemporary position of the Church, which happens to coincide with my non-expert understanding (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2907#66763). It is not an argument to convince you to accept the Catholic position.

As to his concept of miracle, I certainly did not discern any “implication or premise that no discussion shall thus be entered into”. On the contrary, the Church is well known for its scrupulous investigation of whether the “miracle” - usually a “physical healing” that an atheist might explain through a yet unknown application of the patient’s strong will (enhanced or not, through his/her faith, concentrated or not on a particular candidate for sainthood) to the healing process - cannot be explained as some process known by contemporary medicine (it cannot “investigate” whether a future, yet unknown, process might explain it).

You are right - if that is what you were after - that there are Catholics, perhaps including some in the hierarchy, who still have a naive understanding of the difference between the realities that science on one hand, and metaphysics/theology on the other, are concerned with.

The distinction between a real medicament and a placebo is important only when evaluating the possible effects of the medicament, not a posteriori: if a pill, treatment, prayer etc., healed me (and the doctor confirmed that), I really do not care whether or not it could be described as a placebo. And conversely, if the pill, treatment or prayer failed, I might be disappointed, although in case of a religious person the prayer even in that case can have (psychologically ) positive side-effects. So in this sense I could even agree with your last paragraph.

Most of the other reactions to Andrew’s insightful (for those with enough background information) article are predictable, though again I am not sure what are Sells’ objections.

I have read about the wonderful work that Mary MacKillop attended to during her lifetime, and I would have thought that would have been enough to earn her the title of Saint!

However, I am somewhat skeptical about the Catholic Church's stipulation that she needs to be responsible for at least 2 'miracles' earned in her name.

As a nurse (and a now lapsed Catholic) I know that when people such as the Australian lady with terminal cancer, that was touted as being her second miracle, find out they are terminally ill they will do anything and pray to all and sundry to cure them.

How on earth did the Catholic hierarchy decide it was specifically Mary MacKillop who 'cured' this lady? I believe the lady had some personal item of the saint in her possession, and that this was proof she had cured the lady of her cancer? Didn't she also pray to the Big Boss as well?

I remain skeptical because I have seen atheists go into spontaneous remission of their cancer, that had also originally been labeled as incurable.

Why on earth would any so-called saint choose a middle aged woman, with lung cancer caused by her smoking, to cure, as opposed to the many terminally ill children in the world that have their whole lives ahead of them?

Sorry, but I just can't go along with this miracle thing at all.

Hi George
I did not feel Andrew's intention was conversion. In fact he did not set out to denigrate or label non-believers and non-Christians as lacking in morals or inherently evil as some religious writers are prone.

Theological language is lost on me because I have never been exposed to it either as a layman or in academia. But I manage to get the gist. :)

In fact the placebo-effect is real.

Having experienced cancer in those close to me, I worry some believe cancer can always be cured by positive thinking and one might be seen as a failure when things do not improve. That failure is probably felt more internally than any wider public perceptions of failure. The public in the main feel nothing but compassion. Or a believer might perceive that God has deserted them.

There was an implication that the old arguments about evidence are tired and not relevant to the debate. That is what I meant by "no discussion shall be entered into".

While the Church may enter into complex investigation about validity of bestowing Sainthood, once approval is signed off by the Vatican my feelings reading this article was that it was a fait accompli. ie. no need for the "tired" old arguments.

There is much of the psychological in belief, whether it lies in religious faith or power of positive thinking. Cures and remarkable recoveries are random from my experience and the survivors come from wide ranging backgrounds as Suzie proposes above.

The brain is a part of the human body and it controls all bodily functions, movements, the senses through electrical nerve impulses or via release of chemicals throughout our bodies. There is no doubt we humans do not know all there is to know about the power of the mind.

To be continued...

continued...

It is oft quoted that "there are no atheists in the trenches". I could believe that to be true, even an atheist might call out to "God if you are there please save us" but this is not evidence that God exist, but more that we reach out to seek help from wherever it might come. Perhaps this is one way the human brain deals with 'hope' in the same way that chemicals are released that dull pain in serious accidents or the impetus for adrenalin being released in reaction to outside stimuli.

It is all interesting stuff and there is much to learn.

If Christ has not risen from the dead the Christian faith is useless. Resurrection from the dead defies what we see naturally. Funny enough even most hardened atheist still have some puppet tell people at their funeral that they have gone to a better place. Many agnostics and atheist actually understand this more than theologians who teach and believe in a benign faith. Useless faith often uses pseudo science to justify its belief. Our universities are full of this crap. None more so than evolution and its false outcomes like gw.

Miracles will not change corrupted hearts as Jesus told the man suffering in hell. Many believers and non believers have experienced miracles in their lives. It does not necessarily change a persons belief or lifestyle.

The Catholic church play so many unbiblical games when it comes to cannonizing saints. The bible declares all believers as saints (from the weakest to the strongest). Unfortunately the Catholic church like to think that they can play God rather than serve HIm.

Dear runner,

One does not cannonize saints unless they have the right calibre for the cannon.