Following up the post on the subject of the miraculous healing of the lady with uterine fibroids:
Suppose Smaxo Glith Klein want to release a new drug, x. You take it once a day and twice on Sundays and it has miraculous healing powers in this life, PLUS it offers eternal life after death. So what evidence is there for this drug? Well, we have a big book all about it written by Smaxo Glith Klein employees, and we have an email from someone who says it cured her uterine fibroids.
An email from someone saying that x cured her uterine fibroids is anecdotal evidence - see the excellent wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence). "Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as supporting evidence." "Anecdotal evidence cannot be distinguished from placebo effects." You couldn't market a drug on this basis, although it might be worth setting up a few trials to investigate it.
There are four groups of people to consider: - those who pray and are healed - those who pray and are not healed - those who don't pray and are healed - those who don't pray and are not healed
All 4 groups have representatives. We can't deduce anything from a single example without investigating more closely.
As an (anecdotal) example of the 3rd group, consider Stephen Hawking. He was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, which is usually rapidly progressive and fatal within 5-10 years. However, he has lived with the disease for over 40 years so far. This is very surprising from a medical point of view. Doctors say that Hawking has a 'rare, slowly progressive form of MND', which is the medical way of saying 'goodness, we have no idea why that happened'.
As far as I know, Hawking is not a Christian. If he had been, then he would surely have prayed for a cure, and the 'result' would have been hailed as a miracle. A Christian might still interpret Hawking's amazing survival as a miracle. Perhaps his (then) wife Jane, a Christian, prayed for him, so God healed him, or maybe God just decided (because he's kind, loving, etc) to heal him anyway. Or maybe ALL healing, whether expected or unexpected, is a gift from God.
In other words, people with different world-views interpret the same evidence in different ways.
Faced with the paradox:
- I believe y is impossible - Evidence shows that y happened - AArgh! contradiction!
people resolve the problem in different ways. Some common ways are:
1) God can do impossible things, therefore God did it.
or
2) Check the evidence - maybe it was faulty and y didn't happen after all.
3) If the evidence is reliable: Oh well, I was wrong, it wasn't impossible after all.
Personally, I tend to choose 2 or 3 as being the simplest explanation.
no subject
Suppose Smaxo Glith Klein want to release a new drug, x. You take it once a day and twice on Sundays and it has miraculous healing powers in this life, PLUS it offers eternal life after death. So what evidence is there for this drug? Well, we have a big book all about it written by Smaxo Glith Klein employees, and we have an email from someone who says it cured her uterine fibroids.
An email from someone saying that x cured her uterine fibroids is anecdotal evidence - see the excellent wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence). "Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as supporting evidence." "Anecdotal evidence cannot be distinguished from placebo effects." You couldn't market a drug on this basis, although it might be worth setting up a few trials to investigate it.
There are four groups of people to consider:
- those who pray and are healed
- those who pray and are not healed
- those who don't pray and are healed
- those who don't pray and are not healed
All 4 groups have representatives. We can't deduce anything from a single example without investigating more closely.
As an (anecdotal) example of the 3rd group, consider Stephen Hawking. He was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, which is usually rapidly progressive and fatal within 5-10 years. However, he has lived with the disease for over 40 years so far. This is very surprising from a medical point of view. Doctors say that Hawking has a 'rare, slowly progressive form of MND', which is the medical way of saying 'goodness, we have no idea why that happened'.
As far as I know, Hawking is not a Christian. If he had been, then he would surely have prayed for a cure, and the 'result' would have been hailed as a miracle. A Christian might still interpret Hawking's amazing survival as a miracle. Perhaps his (then) wife Jane, a Christian, prayed for him, so God healed him, or maybe God just decided (because he's kind, loving, etc) to heal him anyway. Or maybe ALL healing, whether expected or unexpected, is a gift from God.
In other words, people with different world-views interpret the same evidence in different ways.
Faced with the paradox:
- I believe y is impossible
- Evidence shows that y happened
- AArgh! contradiction!
people resolve the problem in different ways. Some common ways are:
1) God can do impossible things, therefore God did it.
or
2) Check the evidence - maybe it was faulty and y didn't happen after all.
3) If the evidence is reliable: Oh well, I was wrong, it wasn't impossible after all.
Personally, I tend to choose 2 or 3 as being the simplest explanation.