Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.

quote:

---

I saw the x-rays of Dom's shoulder clearly showing shattered bone fragments. I was also present when doctors worked on his ghastly back wound. And, of course I was present 6 months later when his shoulder demonstrated phenomenal recovery.

---

6 months is still a long enough period for the body to repair itself. I see no miracle here.

quote:

---

Dom's symptons for his first cardiac event were pains in the chest and down the left arm, as well as breathing difficulties. He nevertheless discharged himself from casualty in a matter of hours with no further treatment.

---

The blockage in his cardiac artery cleared itself. This happens quite a bit. Again, nothing supernatural about this.

quote:

---

The second cardiac event had similar syptoms, confirmed with a blood test that indicated heart muscle damage (the blood enzyme reading associated with a dying heart due to blodd flow restriction: it was because of this blood test Dom was admitted immediatly to emergency casualty at hospital). Dom also left the hospital within an hour and sought no further medical attention.

---

Same as above. The problem is obviously getting worse, given that CK and probably LDH serum levels were high. A miracle or fulfilled prayer would have been the lack of a second heart attack and the removal of the blockage. What do you think it is going to take to prevent a third heart attack? Prayer or angioplasty?Added in edit: I wasn't very clear on what an arterial blockage was. Within the artery, a plaque will form which is comprised of cholesterol and other lipids/proteins. This causes a narrowing of the artery. If a small blood clot is flowing through the artery it may become lodged in the artery in the area where the plaque has formed. If this blockage continues for long periods of time, sections of heart tissue downstream of the artery will die and be replaced with scar tissue, or even worse the heart stops altogether. However, the clot can clear itself and move past the plaque, lodging itself in a much smaller artery farther downstream where the effected area is much, much smaller. Hope that clears things up.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-08-2004 04:41 PM

Yup, just like my dad a year ago. Though he was kept in for a couple of days to wait for tests. But within two hours was wanting to get going before any treatment.

sfs wrote: I understand. Your claiming that some untestable entity influences the world. In your case, it is the Christian God, on someone elses case it could be invisible pink pixies.This influence is indistinguishable from the natural laws that govern the universe.I have no beef with you. My apologies for using the generic word theist and therefore including you. I probably have no great beef with this either. So in this context, God to you is food, oxygen, shelter and water? Ok. But this is not really the God and the role palyed by God proposed by many Christians is it?This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-08-2004 08:02 PM

The point I was trying to make is that the evidence provided by many Christians to support the claim that God influences their lives through answered prayer, miracles and faith healing, is merely a Christian interpretation of the the same events that are capable of happening to all of us.In relation to faith healing: Christians suffer the same rate of illness and recovery as do all of us, according to their genetic predisposition, lifestyle choices and exposure to pathogens.Christians support the concept of faith healing by fixating on fortuitous recoveries, and de-empphasisng or rationalising away failed recoveries.From my experience, the Dom story above would make a phenomenal foundation for faith healing claims within a church. It actually doesn't provide such a foundation, and I'll explain why in a moment.These, however, are anecdotes underpinning the faith healing claims of several Australian Christian churches that I have studied (I have now provided further explanatory detail):- Teenage girl with severe liver failure. After faith healing is alive and well today 10 years on..... The girl was given a liver transplant by modern medical science.- Elderly man diagnosed with metastasized stomach cancer: life expectancy 3 months. Still alive after 6 months.... this unfortunate individual passed away after 7 months. This story was still seen as a faith healing success: it was just that, according to God, his time was now up.- Papua New Guinean tribesman brought back from the dead.... I have never been able to track this story down to it's origins: it remains an unverifiable anecdote, probably originating from tribal myths.Dom's story? I do have a Christian friend called Dom, but this is not actually his story. The individual in the story is myself. Had I been a Christian at the time that these events occured I have no doubt that this tale would have been spread wide. I myself would have accredited it to God in compliance with a Christian mindset. On it's face, it is better than many faith healing anecdotes that I have heard. It is certainly better than one of my personal favourites: the Christian man who was regularly cured of the common cold within as little as seven days....Instead, as Loudmouth, and sfs have pointed out, it is quite easy to rationalise. The first scenario is an example of the bodies normal re-cooperative capabilities, especially when combined with a progressive recovery exercise regime. The prognosis was pessimistic: probably appropriate for a sedentary individual. The cardiac events were 1) A misdiagnosed torn chest muscle, 2) Misdiagnosed food poisoning (with heartburn). The blood test was misinterpreted: for an elderly inactive man showing symptons of a heart attack, a blood reading showing muscular damage/breakdown is supportive of the diagnosis. For a young individual who regular exercises and resistance trains, the blood reading was normal where you have regular muscle (non-heart muscle) trauma and regeneration. The blood test, as incorrectly interpreted by the doctor, did not distinguish between heart muscle and other muscles.One of the best articles I have ever read on this topic can be found here: Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer. It identfies at least ten errors and bias that can lead honest and intelligent people to accredit success to a "cure", when such credit is not due. The ten errors and bias are equally applicable to faith healing and all other bogus therapies, many which Christians themselves do not subscribe to: Reiki healing, homeopathy, crystals, magnetic therapy, naturopathy etc.The ten are:
1 The disease may have run its natural course.
2 Many diseases are cyclical.
3 Spontaneous remission.
4 The placebo effect.
5 Some allegedly cured symptoms are psychosomatic to begin with.
6 Symptomatic relief versus cure.
7 Many consumers of alternative therapies hedge their bets.
8 Misdiagnosis (by self or by a physician).
9 Derivative benefits.
10 Psychological distortion of reality.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-08-2004 08:40 PM

quote:

---

GILGAMESH: The point I was trying to make is that the evidence provided by many Christians to support the claim that God influences their lives through answered prayer, miracles and faith healing, is merely a Christian interpretation of the the same events that are capable of happening to all of us.

---

19 posts in and you finally cease the subterfuge and reveal what we all knew you were going to say anyway - miracles don't exist.This conclusion is based on strenuous contortions implemented to explain away the crediting of God as the source of a miracle.The point is, when a christian, or anyone for that matter, credits their faith in God for a miracle healing - it would not have happened unless they embraced God by faith.You are assigning every miraculous healing claim to actually be explained by known natural phenomenon. This does nothing to explain the healed persons claim that God did the healing and the fact it would not have happened unless faith in God was exercised.The arrogance of presuming EVERYONE to be wrong/mistaken or delusional is elitist. All because of a starting a priori belief that God doesn't exist. Miracle healings do happen whether you admit it or not/know it or not.Dr. Scott was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer by three separate hospitals (UCLA/City of Hope/Glendale Adventist) These three hospitals and his personal doctor all confirmed terminal prostate cancer: 10 to 12 months to live.He had a double 10 on the Gleason scale - totally cancerous prostate both sides.Surgery and radiation could prolong his life 5 -10 years but with serious side effects. Treatment of some kind MUST begin immediately or risk that the cancer will spread if it hadn't already.Dr. Scott chose to claim healing from the Atonement of Christ and refused treatment. He said "If you have no faith then you better get treatment".He took communion and got a PSA blood test. It went from 10 point something to 6 point something overnight. He took communion again and it dropped to 4 point something. At 75 years old he is allowed to have a PSA of 6 point something. But in a span of a month or so it dropped down to 0.4Dr. Scott " I was sitting on my porch with my wife when I suddenly felt a rolling sensation in my stomach....I felt the hand of God remove the cancer right then and there." After being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer Dr. Scott is completely healed and he never had surgery or radiation.His miracle has been meticulously documented and the story of it is being produced.It is what it is. If Dr. Scott didn't have faith it would not have happened.If you want to arbitrarily claim that cancer is misdiagnosed and it is commonly known to go into remission then this is true, but to say these two things explain all the "miracles" is your worldview dogma.

Hello Willow, I'm glad you anticipated the obvious. Now why don't you subscribe to the obvious? There are greater contortions required to establish the claim of a miracle. Look at the examples above: the girl was either cured by God, or perhaps, just maybe, the new liver saved her life.The Dom scenario I concocted above demonstrates that the sort of scenarios that happen to us non-Christians are the very same types of scenarios that Christians credit to miracles.Christians and non-Christians alike recover from illness for the same reasons. Read the linked article to find out where you guys go wrong.Do you believe in Homeopathy? Reiki healing?
The same errors of reasoning that incline people to attest to the validity of those methods apply to Christians and faith healing.Read the article. It isn't long. Some of the claims are just plain made up. Like the myth about the New Guniea tribesman. The others are simply natural phenomenon. It would have happened whether beleif in God entered the picture or not. I'd say this story falls into the fortunately rare faith healing category category of just plain deliberately made up crap. Dr Scott has a vested interest in making up such claims.If this story was actually true, and it was properly and independently corroborated, then Dr Scott would be able to convert thousands to Christianity. Accordingly I challenge him to contact James Randi (who has investigated in detail and written a book about faith healing in the US) to conduct this assessment of the claim.If the claim is crap, Dr Scott would not allow such independent investigation into the facts and medical records, and he and his cohorts would merely produce some Christian literature not independently verfiying the validity of his medical records and history.I'll wager he'll chose the latter.I'll wager you'll fail to see the importance of the distinction.

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE: If you want to arbitrarily claim that cancer is misdiagnosed and it is commonly known to go into remission then this is true, but to say these two things explain all the "miracles" is your worldview dogma.

---

Gil:Your response to my post failed to address the above quote.Also, for you to add to your dismissal of true miracles (Dr. Scott's) as "crap" is a very meaningless and simplistic insult-dismissal. I thought the entire collective posts of yours in this debate were very well written and explained (even though I disagreed) until this one word dismissal came. BTW, Dr. Scott has converted thousands, nay tens of thousands.

An author in a book has complete control over all the characters in a book, therefore they are merely puppets fulfilling whatever story-line the author has laid out for them. They are not conscious and have absolutely no choice in the matter. If you are saying this is what happens in real life, then I apologize for arguing with you, but if you don't agree that this is the way of things here on Earth, then your argument has no validity. Placing god in the place of an author of a book takes away from the equation any semblance of free will, choice, or chance. It's a very fatalistic viewpoint.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

The thing about "Dr." Scott, is that while he has converted many, many people, it is yet to be shown that he has done so in good faith, if you will. I ask you if it is at all possible that he is lying, whether deliberately or not, just to convert people at any cost, thereby providing himself with money, fame, and power.I would be very sceptical about any account of supernatural healing by a very vocal Christian man with an obvious stake in the matter. If you could provide some outside, verifiable proof or documentation on the "miraculous" recovery, and show that there was no other possible causes for the recovery, it might be easier to accept. (though personally, I would be more likely to chalk it up to some natural cause we may not know about rather than trying to assign it to a god.)

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Willow wrote: Thanks for your metered response to my post which was likely to provoke.I did miss that quote. There are many more reasons for someone being mistaken about the success of a treatment, for say, cancer, than misdiagnosis or spontaneous remission. I refered you to a source that detailed 10:1 The disease may have run its natural course.
2 Many diseases are cyclical.
3 Spontaneous remission.
4 The placebo effect.
5 Some allegedly cured symptoms are psychosomatic to begin with.
6 Symptomatic relief versus cure.
7 Many consumers of alternative therapies hedge their bets.
8 Misdiagnosis (by self or by a physician).
9 Derivative benefits.
10 Psychological distortion of reality.If there is an underlying element of truth to Dr Scott's story, any number of these explainations could go a long way to demonstrating where this faith healing myth originated.Page not found | Skeptical InquirerMind you, these explainations explain why honest, intelligent people might be fooled into thinking that bogus therapies works for themselves. They may explain why Dr Scott is personally mistaken about his own faith healing. They don't, however, address exagerated or fraudulent claims by third parties.Please detail (and document) to me a faith healing miracle that might not easily be classified into one of the above categories or my additonal category of deliberate exageration or fraud.My personal worldview does not exclude miracles. I would like to be shown an unequivocal miracle as it would certainly rapidly resolve my personal quest for God. Yes it was a dismissal. Dr Scott's stereotypical portfolio as a self proclaimed prophet would not be complete without a personal faith healing miracle. He has been shown to be a poor source of accurate information in many of the threads on this forum and this miraculous claim sounds like another.So is Dr Scott prepared to put his money where your mouth is?Is he prepared to permit and independent investigation of this faith healing claim?He'd need to authorise access to the relevant personal medical records and test data, testimony from GPs who aren't personal friends of his from the church, in order to even begin to establish the claim that he had the condition in the first place (granted, it is very likely for a male of his age).He'd have to be able to verify that he did not have any sort of medical treatment for the condition (and there are various).Then he'd need to document such a remission that was not within the expected parameters of such a condition. And, as we would all hope, the cancer should not return.Have I missed anything? (Loudmouth, you seem to know a bit about this stuff).What could Dr Scott possibly have to lose by allowing independent verification of his faith healing claim. Nothing, unless certain or all elements of the claim are false.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-09-2004 12:46 AM

To WILLOWTREE:After reading Gilgamesh's posts, I realised that he is in fact making two points, and you seem to have addressed only one. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I gathered:Point 1:Some "miracles" described and promoted by some Christian churchs in Australia are, in fact, normal everyday occurences that are not miraculous in the least. The fact that they are portrayed as miraculous (as in the case of Gilgamesh, or the late "Dom") suggests that they are preying on the population's ignorance of the law of probability and standard deviation spread of attributes (including recovery times).Perhaps this point could be expressed as a lottery draw:Imagine a lottery draw of 7 numbers from 50 (order not important). The number of possible combinations = 50 nCr 7 = 99,884,400, which is just under 100 million.The fact that there is only one winning combination out of 100 million indicates that the chances of you winning is highly improbable, and should you win, it would indeed be miraculous.However, if 100 million individuals all bought a ticket with combinations different to each other (that is, together, they cover all the possible combinations), then the chances of SOMEONE winning the lottery is 1 (or certainty). If 70% of those who bought a ticket in this lottery are Christian, then the "miracle" could be attributed to the act of God in 70% of the time. (If all of them are Christians, then God is busy during every draw)Now consider that the chances of some of the "freaky" occurences in the world are much higher than 1 in 100 million, and that there are well in excess of 6 billion people in the world, perhaps then you would realise the flaw in a "miracle" argument?********************************************************************Point 2:Surely you have heard of miraculous apparitions in other religions? From the Hindu statues that drank milk to the statue of Vigin Mary that cried tears of blood; from the impenetrable skin of Shoalin monks to the God-like feats claimed by the founder of Falun Dafa.How do they fit into the Christian view that the biblical God has a monopoly on miracles? Are they all fake? Are Christian claims true?Or are you going to attribute them to Satan (a.k.a. the universal scapegoat)?Patiently awaiting your reply.Edited to correct figure "60 billion" to "6 billion"This message has been edited by Sleeping Dragon, 06-09-2004 12:50 AM

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

i would consider myself a theist, actually a christian, and i don't think like this at all.good and bad are subjective terms. i have faith that everything is actually good and that somethings no matter how bad they may seem to me, are in fact good, and serve some other cause.i don't think in terms of god = good, devil = evil, as i don't believe in the devil. i believe in a dual nature to god, male/female, good/evil, wrathful/forgiving, etc.however, these beliefs are abnormal, and they're just mine.

quote:

---

GILGAMESH: I did miss that quote

---

And you still have evaded it completely. Don't bother now - it was rhetorical anyway.My entire point is that your starting assumption (God/miracles don't exist) keeps concluding the conclusion under the guise of objective enquiry. Your particular atheist worldview invents a substitute explanation every step of the way without ever clearly identifying a criteria of falsification for your explanations.In other words, what would suffice as evidence of a miracle that you guys would accept ?Answer: You will say something about "objective evidence that can be independantly examined/verified", but this is saying nothing, because this is always the criteria in any quest for truth. My point is that you will conclude faithful to your worldview despite any contrary evidence, which means you are claiming an objectivity that doesn't exist. The objectivity doesn't exist because THERE ARE certainly miracle healings whether it is admitted or not.

Hi Sleeping Dragon:As pertaining to your point 1:I am lousy with lottery analogies and such, so I will just say "no comment".

quote:

---

Point 2:

​

Surely you have heard of miraculous apparitions in other religions? From the Hindu statues that drank milk to the statue of Vigin Mary that cried tears of blood; from the impenetrable skin of Shoalin monks to the God-like feats claimed by the founder of Falun Dafa.

​

How do they fit into the Christian view that the biblical God has a monopoly on miracles? Are they all fake? Are Christian claims true?

​

Or are you going to attribute them to Satan (a.k.a. the universal scapegoat)?

---

As to claims of miracle in other religions:Christianity/Bible teaches that there are TWO and only TWO possible sources for miracle - God or Satan.The God of the Bible does not claim monopoly on all miracles. What is the source of this presumption ?There are witch doctors in Haiti and Luzon that can do things that would disturb your mind ! They admit their source (demons).The Bible teaches that the False Prophet will do mind boggling miracles and get the masses to be loyal to Antichrist.Indigenous to Biblical claims is the reality of Satan, thus your dismissal of him must include God or your position does not make sense or have any integrity.

To WILLOWTREE:A large part of the "Are there miracles?" debate in the last 20 odd posts may, in part, be explained by point 1 in my early post. Though my expression is lacking, I do believe that the point was well made and valid. I encourage you to delve deeper into it. Excellent. We are making progress. I apologise for making the statement "How do they fit into the Christian view that the biblical God has a monopoly on miracles?". I hereby retract it.HOWEVER, now we are in a much more interesting position to discuss miracles:Since... ...and... ...I would like to know, how can we tell the difference between miracles performed by God, and those performed by Satan? Can you please kindly answer this question?Note: I would prefer a more practical/pragmatic solution as opposed to "because you can feel the difference". Thank you for your time. But I haven't dismissed Satan. Haven't I mentioned him in my post? I merely didn't think it too likely that Satan would perform miracles on-par with the Almighty to such extents that we can't tell the difference between the two.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"