Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

Imagine the following scenario: The present Pope is giving an important speech on worldwide TV and in front of a live audience, when all of a sudden he claims to feel a divine presence. He then goes on to do something truly astonishing, seemingly impssible. What it is, doesn't matter, except that it appears beyond the capabilities of even magicians.

After doing the feat he quickly settles back to normalacy and admits he can't explain how he did what he did and that it must be a sign from God. For weeks Catholics, as well as other Christians, and others as well, feel awe inspired and vindicated in their beliefs in a supreme being.

Then one day the Amazing Randi holds a news conference where he shows how he has figured out a way to duplicate the feat using the tricks of a magician including sophisticated devices. It was far from easy but he did it. Meanwhile he cannot prove that the Pope used the same technique to accomplish the feat. But if the Pope did use his technique, it was clearly pre planned trickery, and the Pope would be marked as a liar and a super world class magician to boot.

After Randi's news conference how sure would you be, as a Catholic, that the Pope's astonishing feat was done without using an obvious trick?

A. Almost Positive

B. Pretty Sure

C. About 50-50

D. Doubtful

E. Highly Doubtful

I'd also like to know how Protestants and others feel.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

E. Highlydoubtful

I don't think a message from God would be able to be replicated.

And if I were the Amazing Randi after the incident I would fear for my life.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

The change in belief (before and after Randi's explanation) would be interesting as well.

Personally, when someone does something that appears impossible on tv then I'm highly doubtful of its veracity even without an explanation. It's reproducibility that is persuasive.

chez

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

I'm not totally sure what you're asking. Are you asking if man's ability to reproduce God's miracles would diminish people's belief in Him?

Man can dig big wholes in the ground, but I don't think that it diminishes anyone's awe of the Grand Canyon.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

E.

But I am skeptical by nature. I am anticipating Bigdaddy's response. He seems to have alot of faith in the pope.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe."

Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

-John 20:24-29

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

An important item in this scenario is “the present Pope”. By this, I assume you mean it literally – Benedict XVI and not the present Pope at any point in time.

When I first heard that Joseph Ratzinger was the new Pope I was a bit concerned. I hadn’t really known much about him at the time. I knew he was the “gendarme”, i.e. the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the enforcer of church doctrine. My impression from the little I knew was that he was too stringent. Then I read/heard more about him. He is highly regarded as an intellectual as is actually very humble. Upon further reading I found that he is indeed the real deal. (Contrary to what Peter666 thinks.)

I would have to answer that I would be pretty sure. I would be almost positive that he didn’t do a trick; that it wasn’t a fraud. (So if that is the exact question then I go with A.) There could be another explanation, so I have to go with B. I also qualify it because I trust the Pope but (my) faith is in God, not man.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you suppose it's so important to God that man deny the very common sense He instilled in him in the first place?

Would you give your child a gift and then punish her because she used your gift?

Wow, this might be the best question ever on this forum;-) ...
 

...of course I haven't followed all of them

Re: Wow, this might be the best question ever on this forum;-) ...
 

This seems like kinda a non-question to me. How would you feel about the Pope if he killed a hobo? There's numerous hypothetical things the Pope could do that'd make people feel such and such, he hasn't done those things though.

Re: Wow, this might be the best question ever on this forum;-) ...
 

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like kinda a non-question to me. How would you feel about the Pope if he killed a hobo? There's numerous hypothetical things the Pope could do that'd make people feel such and such, he hasn't done those things though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good question because in order to answer it, you must consider:

A) the chance such "real miracles" are possible

B) the chance that a very strange conjunction of physical conditions might have taken place, resulting in an extreme freak occurrence (such as an incident of unexplained "spontaneous combustion", if such incidents exist, or something very bizarre but still within the realm of physics)

C) the chance that some very rare sort of psychokinetic powers do exist (not a "miracle"; but rather, something along the lines of enhanced ESP or telekinesis)

D) the chance that the Pope is a major charlatan capable of performing a truly outstanding magic trick

E) the chance that it was, in fact, a trick of the Devil, and the Pope is possessed

F) the chance that some other possible explanation might exist which is not outlined above

Next, assign rough probabilities to each of the above scenarios (I'll bet they don't sum to 100%;) ) Next, assign proportional probabilities to each of those scenarios, i.e., since the raw probabilities assigned probably won't sum to 100%, do it instead like: "the chance of possibility A is ten times that of possibility E, and the chance of possibility E is twice that of possibility D; or whatever ratios you see fit; do this for all the choices, and you will be well on your way to answering David's question.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you suppose it's so important to God that man deny the very common sense He instilled in him in the first place?

Would you give your child a gift and then punish her because she used your gift?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is you who are making assumptions, namely that God having given man reason expects him not to make use of it. There are certain protestant posters here who make that implicit assumption, but not us catholics.

The point of Jesus' teaching is that one should accept the testimony of credible witnesses as well as the teachings of God and His prophets. And it is perfectly acceptable and necessary to apply one's reason to those teachings to derive their full logical meaning, although again many protestants seem to have a problem with that.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

Essentially this is a "Gap" belief in a nutshell. The pope's or my inability to explain something does not mean it doesn't have a natural one .. classic gap.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Arthur C. Clarke

Every civilization has some technology and/or natural events that are beyond their current understanding. Because of that fact, there is no 'magic' that would make me say' "ok, god did it". That would be the same as claiming omniscience for myself.

This especially includes my personal experinces - visions - emotions - events I believed happend but show no evidence.

luckyme,
my mind would change, if it thought I was wrong

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point of Jesus' teaching is that one should accept the testimony of credible witnesses as well as the teachings of God and His prophets. And it is perfectly acceptable and necessary to apply one's reason to those teachings to derive their full logical meaning, although again many protestants seem to have a problem with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
In Acts you will find that everytime Paul arrived in a new town, he immediately went to the synagogue and reasoned with them through the scriptures concerning the truth of Jesus Christ. I find it interesting that the Bible uses that word specifically: reasoned. There shouldn't be any doubt that God expects us to use our minds to arrive at a decision concerning the truth of His word.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point of Jesus' teaching is that ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Such statements are credible only if the person never says " We cannot claim to know gods motives/reasons ... ".

Then again, if they do say that, how can they claim to know X is for certain. Seems a basic problem with theism, and, yes, I realize theists simply claim both positions and move on.

luckyme,
My mind would change if it thinks I'm wrong.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

I don't know, I guess it depends on the situation.

I would probably feel it was all fake, though. Probably the same way I feel about David Blane

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of Jesus' teaching is that ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Such statements are credible only if the person never says " We cannot claim to know gods motives/reasons ... ".


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree if you mean that we cannot by reason alone know God's motivations. But we can claim to know such if He has told us in His divine revelation.

Re: Wow, this might be the best question ever on this forum;-) ...
 

The question is essentially just 'do you trust the Pope?'. If you do, you can assume divine intervention, if you don't you arrive at trickery. The point I was making is that you could say, 'what would you think if the Pope turned into yoghurt carton?'. It has little meaning because you can take any hypothetical thing that hasn't happened and draw conclusions based on that thing that are the antithesis of what you already believe. Anyone to whom that doesn't apply has no flexibility or credibility. I'd believe that I could fly if I suddenly found myself flying, and I'd be right to do so. That fact does not in any way challenge or discredit my current belief that I can't fly.

As an aside, I was amused by DS not including 'absolutely positive' as an option [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would you give your child a gift and then punish her because she used your gift?

[/ QUOTE ]
The analogy isn't quite right. It's more like giving a child a swiss army knife which they then use to kill people.

Plus, God didn't give us the gift of reason. Humans got reason by disobeying God and eating from the forbidden tree.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, God didn't give us the gift of reason. Humans got reason by disobeying God and eating from the forbidden tree.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we didn't have a reasoning ability, then how is it our fault that we ate the fruit after being given the temptation by the serpent? What good is free will without reason?

Re: Wow, this might be the best question ever on this forum;-) ...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd believe that I could fly if I suddenly found myself flying, and I'd be right to do so. That fact does not in any way challenge or discredit my current belief that I can't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a line in "A Beautiful Mind" where he states about his hallucinations .."They're not aging". If a person is in a full-blown hallucinating experience, it can strike them in two ways 1) the experience is totally real but they 'know' it's an hallucination . 2) the experience is totally real and 'at the time' they can't do anything but believe it's actually happening.

Hallucinating flying may fall in either of those, the test is whether one believes it next week or reason returns and a version of "they're not aging" decides the issue. I'm always amazed with how much we're aware about the ease of hallucination, false memory and other tricks our mind has in it's bag, that people put such credence is "well, it happened to me."

Sometimes it's even in other ! peoples experiences.. "My wife had this amazing experince so now I believe xyz.." Yet, experiences occur inside the mind, not outside. Even discounting false memory ( which is very common), the best we can say about an experience is that we experienced it.

Whether it 'happened' is a matter to be resolved as best we can - outside of the direct experience.

luckyme

Re: Wow, this might be the best question ever on this forum;-) ...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd believe that I could fly if I suddenly found myself flying, and I'd be right to do so. That fact does not in any way challenge or discredit my current belief that I can't fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a line in "A Beautiful Mind" where he states about his hallucinations .."They're not aging". If a person is in a full-blown hallucinating experience, it can strike them in two ways 1) the experience is totally real but they 'know' it's an hallucination . 2) the experience is totally real and 'at the time' they can't do anything but believe it's actually happening.

Hallucinating flying may fall in either of those, the test is whether one believes it next week or reason returns and a version of "they're not aging" decides the issue. I'm always amazed with how much we're aware about the ease of hallucination, false memory and other tricks our mind has in it's bag, that people put such credence is "well, it happened to me."

Sometimes it's even in other ! peoples experiences.. "My wife had this amazing experince so now I believe xyz.." Yet, experiences occur inside the mind, not outside. Even discounting false memory ( which is very common), the best we can say about an experience is that we experienced it.

Whether it 'happened' is a matter to be resolved as best we can - outside of the direct experience.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, all fair comment, I wouldn't argue against any of that - scratch 'suddenly' and make it 'repeatedly, over time' if it's preferable. All that I was getting at, RE the original Pope question:

You can take any belief we have, nevermind flight - take gravity, time, anything. And you can concoct some scenario which, if it happened, would refute those beliefs. All that possibility establishes is that we're not idiots. We can and should change our beliefs based on new evidence.

But throwing a hypothetical into the mix in this example is useless. It's like saying 'what if the Pope was caught visiting a brothel'. The hypothetical already refers to a guy that doesn't exist, he's a different guy by virtue of that action and what it says about his personality, so we can't pull any conclusions from that scenario about our current guy.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree if you mean that we cannot by reason alone know God's motivations. But we can claim to know such if He has told us in His divine revelation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with that is the same as with the "I'm flying, I'm flying" experience. If one sets reason aside then there's no way to differentiate a 'son of sam' type message from any other, whether a personal recent revelation or an historical one. Iow, 'revelaton' is an experince that somebody had. Accepting an experience ( regardless of how vivid, or emotional, or unreal) is still accepting an experience and freezing out the "but they're not aging" part.

luckyme

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

Why is almost everyone ignoring my question? I am simply asking whether you would believe a respected Pope who claimed he did a miracle given the feat could be duplicated by non miraculous, albeit very sophisticated, means.

Re: Wow, this might be the best question ever on this forum;-) ...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can take any belief we have, nevermind flight - take gravity, time, anything. And you cascenario which,if it happened , would refute those beliefsn concoct some . All that possibility establishes is that we're not idiots. We can and should change our beliefs based on new evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "we're not idiots" and "new evidence" approach deals with logic and rationality. My point is that the 'new evidence' can't be a mere 'experience', ..not after the movie :wink

I'm harping on the "if it happened" and what it takes to make us say it did. Evidence is built on something more concrete, testable, external. A anti-normal/expectation experience may start us looking at where and how we could find evidence that would give us a different view of some situation, but by the nature of experience, even repeated, we require more than acceptance of it as 'the explanation".
Else, I am going to think that Red Kings always lose.

luckyme

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is almost everyone ignoring my question? I am simply asking whether you would believe a respected Pope who claimed he did a miracle given the feat could be duplicated by non miraculous, albeit very sophisticated, means.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't ignore it, I gave you my answer so perhaps you'd return the favour. What is your answer before Randi's intervention?

chez

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

The answer is E, obviously. It's just a simple Bayes' Theorem problem.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
whether you would believe a respected Pope who claimed he did a miracle given the feat could be duplicated

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, huff, "I've" been answering that in great detail [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Believing him is not the same as 'did it happen as it appeared'. Here are some scenarios -
a) He's in on some trick.
b) He's not in on it, just a pawn in it.
c) It's not a trick, just a weird situation, Randi illustrated only one explanation for it.

the OPs original question -
[ QUOTE ]
After Randi's news conference how sure would you be, as a Catholic, that the Pope's astonishing feat was done without using an obvious trick?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an excluded middle situaton. It's not two opposite posibilities - Pope pulling trick vs Divine. I'd temporarily assume a 'trick' by someone but I'd be open to some weird 'natural' cause also. There is nothing that would suggest the supernatural now, but there wasn't before Randi's suggestion either.

luckyme

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is almost everyone ignoring my question? I am simply asking whether you would believe a respected Pope who claimed he did a miracle given the feat could be duplicated by non miraculous, albeit very sophisticated, means.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the absence of evidence that the pope had cheated by using scientific means, or that another person had even without the pope's knowledge, then yes I would tend to believe him. Note that this belief of this act as miraculous cannot be compelled as it is outside of general revelation which ceased with the death of the last apostle.

The key factor though would be whether such a result could have occurred naturally even though rarely. However, praying for same and it occurring at a specified time or within a very short timeframe could to me be convincing evidence for same, though not to the point of 100% certainty.

The Church has made judgements that various miracles have occurred, such as the Marian apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima, as well as miracles experienced/performed by various saints. But again with the above doctrinal point, the Church merely says that such beliefs are worthy of belief and free from doctrinal error, not that believers are compelled to believe them which it can't compell. So one can be a good Catholic and refuse to believe in the Marian apparations of Lourdes and Fatima. (I personally believe in same.)

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

Okay.

What is the prior probability of said miracle?

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

As a Catholic I would have to say:

E. Highly Doubtful

The history of the Church clearly demonstrates that the Pope and other Church leaders are human. The role of revelation and Faith in the Catholic religion makes any mircle suspect.

Alas, many believers do not share this skepticism.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is the prior probability of said miracle?

[/ QUOTE ]
Much lower than the prior probability that a Pope would lie.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
The change in belief (before and after Randi's explanation) would be interesting as well.

Personally, when someone does something that appears impossible on tv then I'm highly doubtful of its veracity even without an explanation. It's reproducibility that is persuasive.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So, basically, you deny the once-in-a-lifetime miracle based on the inherent aspect of that miracle not being reproducible. Because if it is reproducible -- it ain't a friggin' miracle any more is it?!

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The change in belief (before and after Randi's explanation) would be interesting as well.

Personally, when someone does something that appears impossible on tv then I'm highly doubtful of its veracity even without an explanation. It's reproducibility that is persuasive.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So, basically, you deny the once-in-a-lifetime miracle based on the inherent aspect of that miracle not being reproducible. Because if it is reproducible -- it ain't a friggin' miracle any more is it?!

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, I seriously doubt any miraculous claim even if I can't currently explain it.

chez

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

Hume's Maxim: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish."

I think this miracle would be more miraculous than the Pope lying, or being deceived by someone else.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the absence of evidence that the pope had cheated by using scientific means, or that another person had even without the pope's knowledge, then yes I would tend to believe him.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Pope told you that God told him to tell you to kill your family, would you believe him? (And would you do it?) Why or why not?

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is almost everyone ignoring my question? I am simply asking whether you would believe a respected Pope who claimed he did a miracle given the feat could be duplicated by non miraculous, albeit very sophisticated, means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first example was not only of the Pope claiming it, but of the astonishing event being witnessed by those in person and watching on TV.

One difficulty I would have with actually providing an answer to your question, is that ALL possible explanations (including even that of a charlatan Grand Magician Pope), would just appear extremely unlikely. It's harder to pick between a bunch of extremely unlikely explanations, than it would be to choose if even one of the explanations were moderately likely. Even though one might assign some ranking of likelihoods, it's still hard since all choices are just so implausible.

Minuscule probabilities can sometimes be hard to differentiate for real-world purposes, so looking for as-yet-unthought-of explanations might assume an additional importance. If all explanations are terribly unlikely, maybe there is an explanation nobody has thought of yet, so spending some time mulling along those lines and trying to gather any additional related information, no matter how seemingly insignificant, might be useful.

So maybe it's a bit of a copout, but I'd feel a lot better if I had the exact information of the event to go on in real life: having seen it on TV, watching reruns for any odd moves by the Pope, maybe getting a clue by the "type" of miracle performed, etc.--when dealing with something truly baffling, every little clue might help, and potentially might help a lot.

However, I would place the probability of a genuine miracle by God LOWER than some of the other potential explanations which I listed in my other post (such as a freak physical phenomena like "spontaneous combustion", if it exists, or a strange instance of super-telekinetic power, if it exists), or even the Pope doing an elaborate magic trick.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the absence of evidence that the pope had cheated by using scientific means, or that another person had even without the pope's knowledge, then yes I would tend to believe him.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Pope told you that God told him to tell you to kill your family, would you believe him? (And would you do it?) Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously not what the OP's question is about, but rather about a miraculous event having already occurred. And I am not bound by injuctions, even from the pope, that are contrary to the moral law.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

I'm looking for a specific answer. Too often Bayes theorem is invoked without any attendant mathematics.

Re: Good Question For Catholics and Others
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking for a specific answer. Too often Bayes theorem is invoked without any attendant mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Questioning the veracity of the pope is fine but you go too far if you bring Bayes into question [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

chez