.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« I would be very interested to see a scholarly refutation of any of the Proclaimed Miracles of Lourdes. »

I think you will find that most people agree that miracles do occur, whether at Lourdes or elsewhere, “miracle” being defined as “a remarkable event or development that brings very welcome consequences” (secondary definition, Oxford English Dictionary).

The problem arises when you try to explain why miracles occur. That is when dissension sets in.

When no scientific explanation is forthcoming, the way is free for religion “to attribute the event to a divine agency” (primary definition, Oxford English Dictionary) or to “faith” as indicated by George on page 10 of this thread.

The Online Etymology Dictionary traces the origin of the word “miracle” back to the Sanskrit smerah "smiling," Greek meidan "to smile," Old Church Slavonic smejo "to laugh". It later evolved to the Latin miraculum "object of wonder" (which became in Church Latin, "marvelous event caused by God"). Then from the mid-13c. it evolved to just an "extraordinary or remarkable feat," without regard to deity.

In his Manifesto on Miracles and Revelation (Kevaddha Sutta), speaking of miracles, the Buddha says “I dislike, reject and despise them”. He warned his followers against exploiting miracles to manipulate people and attract new adherents.

Doug Smith, an American philosopher, suggests the following reason for the Buddha’s rejection of miracles :

« Perhaps the Buddha is really saying that these miracles don’t bring people to the dhamma for the right reasons. They are mere circus show; the sorts of things that stun and delight the crowd but don’t really instruct. The real miracle is not supernatural at all. It is the ‘miracle’ of the dhamma : of teaching true wisdom.

Even the attitude of the Catholic church to miracles has evolved over time.

In 1234, Pope Gregory IX established procedures for the Vatican to investigate miracles and the life of candidate saints. Prior to that there was no centralized procedure. The Swedish Church had canonized a monk who was killed in a drunken brawl.

.

No, Pericles. I wasn't suggesting any of those things. I was attempting to highlight an unhealthy bias in the article (a piece that most here commenting seem to have long forgotten.)

It seems to me that everyone here who has commented on the article is in wholehearted agreement. I read the author as saying that governments should tolerate religious beliefs based on conscience similar to other matters of conscience. If so many here agree, it probably follows that he's not saying anything controversial. He may not be saying anything very meaningful at all.

But he raises some interesting anecdotes. It reminds me of the situation in Australia with regard to compulsory voting. The government compels us to vote. Presumably, this is to remind us of our civic obligations, and that we are all responsible for good government.

However, if I cannot stomach either of the major parties, and don't like any if the minor candidates, I'm often tempted not to bother voting. Even by conscience I wouldn't want to vote for any of them, as the preferential system will give my vote to one of those lousy characters. So I'm compelled to go against my conscience.

But not so, if I belong to the church of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because this group feel driven by conscience that they are not to involve themselves in civic government, they have been therefore granted an exemption from voting. In essence, by virtue of a religious exemption the JWs are allowed to avoid a legal obligation to which the rest of us must comply.

Yet I don't begrudge them this. I think within the overall scheme, we are all still free to follow our conscience on this matter. When I don't like any candidates, I can go to the voting booth and have my name crossed off and submit a blank paper.

"When I don't like any candidates, I can go to the voting booth and have my name crossed off and submit a blank paper."

It's still a crime, contrary to popular opinion. If you look in the electoral act, what is required is "to vote", not to get your name crossed off the list.

I think the biggest modern religion or superstition is of course the supposed miraculous powers of the State: it can cure the sick, fine-tune the climate, create real wealth by printing pieces of paper, equalise the genders, fix the Middle East etc. etc. etc. etc.

The method of reasoning is always the same as that of those who reason that rain dances increase crop fertility. If crop fertility increases after a rain dance, they reason it was because of the rain dance. If crop fertility doesn't increase after a rain dance, they reason it was because they didn't do enough. This is exactly the same line as we get, for example, with government's alleged "tackling recession" - i.e. creating wealth - by printing paper. Completely irrational. Yet unnoticed, because it's the State. If you substituted the expression "the Pope" for "the Governor of the Reserve Bank" they would recognise it immediately.

Similarly, we often get left wing people correctly identifying religious thought as circular and illogical, but engaging in exactly the same intellectual methodology when it comes to the alleged benefits of governmental action.

All the same criteria in the definition of religion apply to statism in general, and Marxism in particular. The statists just substitute the State for God, that is all.

ITS..interesting/..i just heard/that all religions..are created/equal
thats a good enough reasoning..till you take into account/that any extreemists[who drift away from their faith]..will be unable to CONNECT..spiritualy..in the next life/with their ancestorial line[but usually its a safe bet/those believing the same things/do the same things..and end up in the same place.

and nuthin ya can do,,about it..preaching
only drives the problem in deeper..many would not be atheist..;if not for meeting a demon..claiming..that faith/but cLearly by their wr0ds/w0rks..be far from it[like i recall belly stoppeD BELIEVING..after hearing a couple of priests disbelieving,[HAVING,,BAD SERVANTS..IS NO REASON T0 DUMp a perfectly good god.

but there yu go/some tink to forgoe eternity;for lies
now belly never..did the schooling..so he dont know the law re enerrgy consERVATION,,[energy cant be created nor destroyed[our mind/nerves=electrical engery..[that equates to arround one ounce of mass[having the godlESS SAY THATS SIMPLY VAPOUR EXPIRATION IN OUR BREATH..dont refute the proofed truth.[ignoring the other test/that proved wild DOGS GOT NO SOUL*

http://www.spiritwritings.com/GatewayOfUnderstanding.pdf
http://archive.org/stream/talbotholographicuniverse/talbotholographicuniverse_djvu.txt

AND REGARDIng,,speciaL rights,,[sPecial dispensatION]
ALL LIVING DESERVE EQUAL STANDING/re freedoms/duties/protections/rules

but all created fictions,,ie/states\business/trusts/corperations/deptments..etc..[ie persons created/under their CONSTITUTING act..where the living are enslaved to serve the dead corpus/they only have the rights..of those they serve,,[the living right holders doing the serving.

Jardine,
I tend to agree with your last comment. The state is happy to take on a religious role or position. It's not intolerant to religion at all. Rather, it's busy instituting its own form of religion - a type of secular humanism.

The government is intolerant only to certain forms of religion. You get a taste of the intolerance in the article here when the author descends to calling those he disagrees with 'stupid'. He refers to certain religious believers as irrational, unreasonable, lacking in common sense and scientific knowledge. It's name calling at a very basic level.

I wish the author, Ralphe Seccombe, who seems to have contributed to OLO regularly, would come and defend his writing here in the comments section.