Why (or why not) be Christian?

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing the "Will you make it to heaven?" threads started by @VincitVeritas which have become a more wide-ranging discussion about matters of faith, Christian belief.

Hope to see you on here when the last thread runs out of space! And new posters welcome too.

We've recently been discussing the evidence for God, the soul and life after death, and debating what constitutes reliable evidence in this context.

Also some talk about whether it's accurate to say humans are 'sinful' and why/why not, some discussion of Paul and the validity of his writings and status as an apostle, how the Bible was formed (and why other writings didn't make the canon) the basis of morality/ethics, whether Jesus's message was intended for an excusively Jewish audience, the meaning of Christ (or Messiah), church tradition and different denominations, end times and probably more I've forgotten!

Reported where?

There are lots of highly regarded medical research institutes that would LOVE to investigate such unusual cases!

So only good things are miracles by definition so what do we call bad supernatural/god caused things?

OK I have actually Googled this and to my surprise found some medical reports of miracles. I will find the links.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830720300926?via%3Dihub

Woman who had been blind for 12 years regained vision instantaneously after receiving prayer.

"A differential diagnosis of blindness associated with conversion disorder (i.e., psychosomatic condition) might be considered. However, this is unlikely, as there was objective evidence for organic macular disease at the diagnosis, which is inconsistent with a purely psychogenic etiology. The examining physician in 1960 writes, “In each eye there is a dense yellowish white area of atrophy involving each fovea”. A “conversion disorder” could not explain the yellowish white area of atrophy involving each fovea, nor could it explain resolution of the macular atrophy in the images obtained since the recovery of vision."

"In summary, the patient was blind for thirteen years because of a condition that appeared to be a severe form of Stargardt's disease. Following a PIP event [prayer], her vision was spontaneously restored and remains intact to date, 47 years later."

"Findings from this report and others like it17 warrant investment in future research to ascertain whether and how PIP [prayer] experiences may play a role in apparent spontaneous resolution of lifelong conditions having otherwise no prognosis of recovery."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229918313116?via%3Dihub

"A boy who was dependent on tube feeding for 16 years experienced proximal-intercessory-prayer (PIP) at a church and felt an electric shock starting from his shoulder and going through his stomach. After the prayer experience, he was unexpectedly able to tolerate oral feedings. The g- and j-tube were removed four months later and he did not require any further special treatments for his condition as all symptoms had resolved. Over seven years later, he has been free from symptoms. This article investigates a case of PIP as an alternative intervention for resolving severe idiopathic gastroparesis when maximal medical management is not effective."

And yet you are here, giving us the account of this “ miracle”, in substantial detail, using this man’s experience to support your beliefs. Is that actually ethical, in its self? Regardless of that, your account has not given away any identifiable information about this person.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10547166/

A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit
W S Harris 1, M Gowda, J W Kolb, C P Strychacz, J L Vacek, P G Jones, A Forker, J H O'Keefe, B D McCallister
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 10547166 DOI: 10.1001/archinte.159.19.2273Erratum inArch Intern Med 2000 Jun 26;160(12):1878

Abstract

Context: Intercessory prayer (praying for others) has been a common response to sickness for millennia, but it has received little scientific attention. The positive findings of a previous controlled trial of intercessory prayer have yet to be replicated.

Objective: To determine whether remote, intercessory prayer for hospitalized, cardiac patients will reduce overall adverse events and length of stay.

Design: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, prospective, parallel-group trial.

Setting: Private, university-associated hospital.

Patients: Nine hundred ninety consecutive patients who were newly admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU).

Intervention: At the time of admission, patients were randomized to receive remote, intercessory prayer (prayer group) or not (usual care group). The first names of patients in the prayer group were given to a team of outside intercessors who prayed for them daily for 4 weeks. Patients were unaware that they were being prayed for, and the intercessors did not know and never met the patients.

Main outcome measures: The medical course from CCU admission to hospital discharge was summarized in a CCU course score derived from blinded, retrospective chart review.

Results: Compared with the usual care group (n = 524), the prayer group (n = 466) had lower mean +/- SEM weighted (6.35 +/- 0.26 vs 7.13 +/- 0.27; P=.04) and unweighted (2.7 +/- 0.1 vs 3.0 +/- 0.1; P=.04) CCU course scores. Lengths of CCU and hospital stays were not different.

Conclusions: Remote, intercessory prayer was associated with lower CCU course scores. This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.

I work in a tertiary referral centre with incredibly sick patients. I can think of many patients over the years whose chances of survival were extremely low and had reached the end of the road in terms of treatment options. Nobody expected them to live. And yet they did.

We don't call them miracles because we know because of our wide experience that some patients do get better for no obvious reason. I can imagine that in hospitals where they have a far smaller volume of very sick patients that recovery would seem miraculous to some.

We also tend not to contradict patients and their families who believe that it was a "miracle", it wouldn't be received positively I suspect. That doesn't mean we agree that it's a miracle.

As an aside, my disabled sister has recently recovered from a separate (much more minor) condition that has been resistant to normal treatments. My mum says it's because lots of people were praying for her. It's nice of God to cure her of the more minor ailment. Shame He didn't cure her of her disability instead, I think it would have been more helpful to her and also a bit more difficult to explain away logically.

@Gumbear I know you'll say "well, you would say that, wouldn't you?" but the case you cite happened 47 years before the paper calling for further investigation was published....

To the country’s medical council? To teaching hospitals? By contacting research doctors objectively specialising in unexplained medical phenomena, so that they could objectively document this occurrence? The list goes on.

The event that you describe, if only witnessed by very religious people, is subjective and there is not evidence of any kind of miracle.

There's nothing unethical about sharing my personal experience of a miracle on an anonymous online forum. I haven't sold his story to the papers. And, as you say, I haven't disclosed any identifiable information about him, except for people from my town who would recognise the story.

Doctors have legal duties of confidentiality and have to be very careful about sharing information about their patients.

Doctors share information all the time, this is how we teach new doctors and learn things, it does not involve selling stories to newspapers and does not break doctor patient confidentiality.

But as has been pointed out to you several times, it can be done completely anonymously. And absolutely should have been officially recorded in some way.

There are many unknowns in medicine. Did you know that they don't know exactly how general anaesthetics work? They just know that they do!

Now if something so widely used in medicine has no clear explanation yet, does it still seem so miraculous that they don't know why a small amount of people just get better?

It happened in 1972 and that's why they can say that her eyesight remained intact for 47 years. The authors of the case report say: "Findings from this report and others like it warrant investment in future research to ascertain whether and how PIP experiences may play a role in apparent spontaneous resolution of lifelong conditions having otherwise no prognosis of recovery."

They are saying that, based on this example and others like it, there should be investment in research into prayer and healing.

I don't understand what your point is.

Not knowing exactly how anaesthetic works is different from people being instantaneously healed from lifelong diseases.

But this is all going towards proving my point that whatever evidence of miracles you give people they will find a reason not to believe it if it doesn't accord with their world view. That's probably why there aren't many reports. People don't want to share personal information that leaves them open to disbelief and ridicule. It's why I don't share my personal story with people unless I know and trust them.

Maybe it was. I, as a member of the general public, am not aware of it if it has been recorded. I mean, it will be in his medical notes at least.

@Gumbear I've just read through the study you linked. The authors themselves state

"Although our findings would be expected to occur by chance alone only 1 out of 25 times that such an experiment was conducted, chance still remains a possible explanation of our results."

Other studies besides Byrd's have explored the impact of intercessory prayer on health outcomes. O'Laoire22 examined the effects of intercessory prayer on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression in 406 subjects (who received either no prayer, directed prayer, or nondirected prayer) and in the 90 intercessors. There were no specific benefits detected for the prayer groups. A pilot study of the effects of intercessory prayer on 40 recovering alcoholics likewise reported no clinical benefit.

This was the randomised trial of remote prayer on cardiac patients. The full paragraph is:

"Although we cannot know why we obtained the results we did, we can comment on what our data do not show. For example, we have not proven that God answers prayer or that God even exists. It was intercessory prayer, not the existence of God, that was tested here. All we have observed is that when individuals outside of the hospital speak (or think) the first names of hospitalized patients with an attitude of prayer, the latter appeared to have a "better" CCU experience. Although our findings would be expected to occur by chance alone only 1 out of 25 times that such an experiment was conducted, chance still remains a possible explanation of our results."

I don't think that last sentence says what you thinks it does.

They are saying that despite the 24/25 probability that it was NOT chance alone, they still can't rule out chance as a possible explanation of the results.

Interesting that you stopped the quote there...it goes on to say:

"Finally, in a 6-month trial of "distant healing" in patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, Sicher et al24 found statistically significant benefits for the intervention group (fewer new illnesses, physician visits, hospitalizations, and days of hospitalization; lower illness severity scores; and improved mood scores). These studies illustrate the broadening scope of interest in remote therapies and suggest that scientifically valid, properly controlled studies can be carried out in this emerging arena."

But this is all going towards proving my point that whatever evidence of miracles you give people they will find a reason not to believe it if it doesn't accord with their world view.

I can guarantee that most people will believe a 'miracle' has happened when there is clear evidence of it t!!

What do you think about an experiment where we all pray together and ask God to cure all cancer cases? It could easily be organised and I doubt anyone wouldn't want that outcome?!

Yes and no. I am just pointing out that there are many outcomes in medicine with unknown mechanisms so there is nothing particularly miraculous about the ones you state, it's pretty common place.

Are the two medical reports I posted not clear evidence? And yet it hasn't changed your mind. So no. I don't think evidence of miracles will change people's minds who don't want to be changed.

If the whole country prayed for healing and all the cancer patients were miraculously healed....

Muslims would say it was Allah.
Hindus would say it was their Gods. (repeat for all other religions)
Conspiracists would say it was a government conspiracy.
Astrologers would say that the stars aligned.
Some people would say it was psychosomatic.
Some people would say it was the covid vaccine.
Some people would say it was aliens.
Some people say it was a scientific breakthrough.
Some people would say the pharmaceutical companies put the cure for cancer in tap water etc.

I don't think everyone would fall to their knees and praise Jesus.