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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

PS: Rhian,

Since you seem to know, can you explain exactly what God's point IS, and how a couple of dodgy and extremely dubious cancer 'cures' are supposed to achieve it? If it's intended to make converts, then it's pretty much a miserable failure, isn't it? Would't he be better off writing his name on the Moon in letters 100km high, for instance?

Who will be canonised re the miracle that Australia hasn't totally stopped functioning under Labor ?

John J

I don’t pretend to know the mind of God, but we do know a fair bit about how human ideas and thought processes have changed over the centuries. To the bible writers, miracles were signs and wonders illuminating the activity of God in our lives. In a culture where many illness and cures were believed to have supernatural causes, the distinction between “miracle” and “natural” cures was almost non-existent.

To the modern mind, miracles are reinterpreted as demonstrations of divine power intended to prove the existence of God precisely because they seem to show the impossible happening, and “laws of nature” being violated. Likewise, a God who wrote his name in 100km high letters on the moon would give us no choice but to believe in him. Such coercive proof is not what the biblical miracle stories are intended to do – a point missed by credulous Christians and incredulous atheists alike.

I don’t believe either God or Mary McKillop cured incurable cancer. I don’t think God’s relationship with the world takes the form of dramatic infrequent overturning of the laws of nature. Miracles as Hume understood them are logical impossibilities, and neither necessary nor sufficient for belief in God.

"It is nevertheless true that some people find benefit in taking particular saints as icons through whom they can more fully approach the divine."

One of the problems the non religious often have with the beliefs of the religious is forming a clear understanding of what they mean. The quotation above from Crabsy is a case in point (for me, at least). Could Crabsy, or someone else, please explain in simple, everyday terms what is meant by using icons to more fully approach the divine?

Most religions have icons and these are as stimulating to the
followers of that religion as is pornography to masturbators.
Christians add torture to the fantasy.

GlenC:

Icons have not been a strong part of my own spiritual practice, but I’ll try to explain how some other worshippers see them – at least as I understand them.

God may be indirectly sensed but never fully known by a human individual. Icons are used as a concrete instrument by some to enhance concentration on coming closer to God in prayer or meditation. The aim is to detach from the egotistical self and allow a stronger attachment to God to develop.

Icons are usually pictures or statues of particular saints or even of Jesus, composed following a detailed stylistic tradition and incorporating many visual symbols. The person portrayed in the icon is selected on the basis of the example his or her life-story offers for anyone wanting to grow more holy.

The use of icons is often denounced as idolatry, but this is based on a misunderstanding. The icon is not worshipped for itself; rather it is used as a tool, perhaps like a window that gives a glimpse of a pathway towards God.

Iconography is not unique to Christianity. Buddhists, Hindus and some other faiths use it similarly as a tool for approaching the divine no matter by what term they know it.

As I said, icons have not played an important part in my religious practice. I can, though, understand how they may be useful to some other people. I may not have given a complete explanation, but this is the best I can do at present. I hope it helps.

Rhian:
I agree with you that the notion of a supernatural power is misleading today. Would you agree that the miracles as narrated in the scriptures are something like icons in that they can provide a "window" through which we may gain greater awareness of God in our lives?

The most mystifying miracle to me is how the internalisations of one or more individuals can be attributed to a specific life event.

It is equally as valid to place the cause of these miraculous events on a Buddhist or other religious believer who has prayed to their God or spirit for all humanity to be free of its ills.

It seems that it can only be wishful thinking or oft used successful marketing that drives one religion to lay claim to what may be the result of the power of another religion or its God. No amount of praying and investigation can remove the possibility of these events being the result of other forces.

Regardless, these miracles are a great source of entertainment and dazzlement for some and a great source of income and control for others - those factors remain constant no matter what is perceived as a miracle.

Thanks crabsy for your explanation of the purpose of icons.

Two similar ideas - not true 'icons' - come to mind. The first is the Rosary. Catholics (and members of some other denominations) use rosary beads as physical objects on which they can concentrate while focusing their prayers elsewhere. We aren't consciously counting beads - we are meditating on the mysteries of our faith. Similarly, when I was in Year 11, I visited a Buddhist temple as part of my SOR course. There, we spent some time meditating while staring intently at a flower. We weren't thinking about the flower - we were simply using it to focus our thoughts. If our eyes wandered, so did our minds.

Saints play a similar role in the Catholic Church. Catholics who believe Mary MacKillop cured cancer are misguided not only in terms of scientific reality, but also in terms of Catholic doctrine. Saints do not perform miracles themselves - they are simply vessels through whom God performs miracles (or so the Church tells us). Thus Mary MacKillop did not cure cancer. If any miracle actually took place, it was God's act - not Mary's - as a sign of His approval of the veneration of Mary MacKillop. The miracles are taken as signs that God approves of the individual's sainthood.

Committed as I am to my Catholic faith, I cannot say with 100% conviction that I believe in miracles. It will always be in my nature to be a bit of a 'doubting Thomas'. I don't necessarily disbelieve in miracles, either. I certainly believe in God, and I don't believe that, a little under 2000 years ago, He decided to stop interacting with His creations. Apparitions, visitations and miracles are not entirely implausible to me. Images of the Virgin Mary on toasted cheese sandwiches are, however, a bit hard to take. While I will not denounce any 'act of God' that has been proclaimed a miracle, I will not puff myself up with false certainty and self-declared expertise by saying that every as-yet unexplained occurrence is an example of divine intervention.

Crabsy
Yes, I like your idea of miracles as icons. Though I’m unable to accept miracles as Hume defines them I’m unwilling to relinquish the idea of miracle as a signifier or symbol of something other than itself. The icon as “window” is a good analogy for this. Though I haven’t made much use of icons, I have heard teachers talk on them. I was particularly impressed with the idea that perspective is often ignored and sometimes reversed in icons, so the viewer does not feel like an outsider observing an eternal scene, and sometimes feels like a character in the painting itself.

Otokonoko
Thanks for your interesting post. I can see the similarity with rosary.

I was told some time ago that doubt is not the opposite of faith, it’s the engine of faith. I always quite liked that idea.

Dear Rhian,
If you wish to know the mind of God, study the bible, meditate on it day and night. Meditate is as easy as worry to do. Worry leads to sickness and death. Meditation (to mutter) on Gods Word (Jesus) leads to abundant life. God provided for all circumstances in his Word. All our part in appropiation of Gods word is to believe. If you believe you see. If you do not believe you will never see. It is much easier to deny then to do the hard yards. Read Mark 16:15-18 and you will see that miracles are a sign for the unbeliever. If you have a death sentence from a doctor and a believer comes along and shares Gods provision for healing from his word and you believe and it triggers enough faith in God to give his word a go, you are then in the place of receiving a miracle. Faith or trust or understanding comes from what we chose to dwell upon(study). Gods will is that none should perish But it is our choice. Worry is faith in the problems we encounter not faith in the answer. People are only earthenware vessels carrying the positive or the negative message. What you feed your mind governs what comes out of your mouth. Possibility or negativity. Only a supernatural creator can go against HIS principles and we call that a miracle. So if evolution is right there are no such thing as a miracle.

There's only one Saint who has reversed a significant, previously incurable condition with demonstrable and reproducible effects.

He has raised the bowed and hung heads of the little sufferers, long forgotten, mocked and derided. Indeed raising them up in renewed body to glorious heights for a hitherto unforeseen duration.

He is adored by men and women alike and in defending the institution of marriage has most certainly earned the respect of the Church.

Galloping upon his Pfizer Charger, he doth utter one sentence only. "Why are you so downcast and infirm of body and soul?", he is known to have spake.

Then in a blaze of blue glory, one is healed as if by magic!

All glory to Saint Viagra.

A miracle indeed.

* In commercial terms, miracles are marketing tools that help consolidate and increase the client base.*

Now that is refreshingly honest

I'll respond to your scatological meadow-muffin,and question your mojo hypothesis ! The newly sanctified Mary McKillop cannot be compared to VC winners, Weary Dunlop or even bush-ranger extraordinaire Ned-the-irish-git-Kelly. Your choice of National heroes leave much to be desired. This momentous occasion is not about how tough and mean, we claim to be, but about resilience, fortitude and ambrosial charity from within.

Oz history is resplendent with statesmen, shysters, thespians, charlatans, and under-belly crims.

Since the inauguration of the First-fleeter's disembarkation at Sans Souci. Botany Bay, the scramble for notoriety and celebrity status has not abated one iota, in fact it has exacerbated tenfold.
From Governor Phillip, to the first week, of a public hanging for rape, lewd behavior and drunkenness All proponents made herculean / Olympian quests to become a first in the antediluvian Guinness Book of Records.Lawson, Wentworth, Macquarie etc strived their level best for Public acclaim and history book recognition. The fame / fortune aka celebrity status quo, was unofficially launched in Terra Australis from Day one: 18 Jan.1788.

Quixotically, " fortune " it seems, took a back seat momentarily. It was not until it became fashionable to do a ' robin hood ' and rob stage coaches when they went over the Blue Mountain Ranges, and ran out of puff. Evidently, the jejune practice didn't pay off as handsomely as some denuded micks expected, so they took up cattle rustling, and blamed it all on the Aboriginal Tribes, who lived along the Hawkesbury, where the modern Windsor / Tropicana is today. This led to full scale " shock-an-awe " skirmishes and reprisals, which owe it's genesis to Governor Phillips untimely intervention. The tribes took a G-awful thrashing. Musket-ball, power beats boomerangs and nulla-nulla's, hands down any Day !

cont..

Despite Manning Clark, Herbert Xavier, Donald Horne, Germain Greer etc, academics fought a losing battle. University was universally shunned and ill affordable. Majority had little time for hoity-toity upstarts. People much preferred their sporting heroes, and still do. They are the most venerated, highly paid and most aspired of all creatures, that walk on water ! More yokels attend the Grand Finals, then the entire Vatican's Canonization extravaganza of Maria Helena McKillop, and her retinue of mock followers, cheerleaders, commercial vendors, and street hawkers.

The hungry need for Heroes has a long history. The myths of Gallipoli, Somme, Bullencourt, Aust Light Horse etc soon followed. Enigmatic Charles Bean spawned the " digger & Anzac " image, even as when PM Hughes brought in conscription, to bolster depleted numbers- victims of horrendous trench warfare, in far off Flanders. Ironically, it was Keith Murdoch who blew the whistle on the gruesome carnage which created the legends of Bean's imaginative literary style. Nevertheless, the fog of War was soon forgotten. They built the AWM, i Fisher, to house all the reminders of those infamous battles and defeats. A legacy and aide memoire to the futility of fighting another man's War !

Enter the Dragon - oops Kevin who ? His vision splendid of Utopia, and his globe-trotting exploits; rubbing noses with the rich and famous, and laying the seeds for his seat in the United Nation's Security Council, on his retirement, until he/it was unceremoniously cut short. It is one thing to hob nob and big note with the Clinton Clan, Koffi Anan, and G20 summit gurus, but back heme in suburbia, and on Capitol Hill, his Brutus mates had other TKO ideas ?

Kevin's Grand Plan A, stretched to appointments far and wide. Currying favor among World Leaders, he created an unheard of Apostolic Resident Ambassador to the Holy See in Rome.2008. Tim Fisher.AC. Deputy PM, and National Party Leader, and inherent sworn foe of Labor Party stalwarts, was sent to take up the position with a gratuitous grant of three million dollars, to expedite if possible, a yet unheard of..

cont..

of Oz first Saint.

Cardinal Pell, and the CC hierarchy provided all the miracles, exemplary curriculum vitae, and all the compassionate paraphernalia vital to her nomination. The ground swell and hysteria came much later, when to prove the veracity of miraculous Divine intervention, the Papal Nuncio had to microscopically research the relevant information, which would take years and countless cross checking to prove beyond the realm of probabilities, the nominee qualified for Sainthood. The whole procedure takes time, infinite patience, and lots of lucre.

Cardinal Vicar Camillo Ruini, from the Congregation of Saints in Rome, vets all proposals. Miracles must be instantaneous; not attributed to any treatment, and disappear for good ! Nominee's must conform to the Latin Rite of the Mass, and the essential " non culties " ie. Exhumation and forensic examination. There are no foregone conclusions.

The criteria is fulsome. One maybe classified as either venerable, blessed, before sainthood is even mentioned.
Saints, were generally understood to mean anyone who was a Christian and in Heaven ! Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormons etc worship saints. Many practicing Protestants believe prayers, devoted to specific saints, to be barefaced idolatry, even necromancy !

The Sister's of St Joseph,which McKillop founded, have been the force majeure and driving impetus behind her canonization. They are custodians of her sepulcher, relics, history, personal possessions, and sacrosanct writings. TV footage Ch 7 and SBS, show they were well represented; waving to the crowds, and decked out in the Oz Flag. Yet another symbol of National pride.

Never before, has the Nation been swept up with so much precedence, pomp and pulsating pantomime. It has energized so many, to great heights of enthusiasm never before displayed in my life time. It has invigorated so many to return to Catholicism and Religion of birth.

As they once said: " miracles DO happen ".

[Spam.]