From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:25:54 GMT

Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com) wrote:

: |> : While you are at it, explain how you distinguish between a
: |> : spontaneous recovery, and "God did it".       I've always 
: |> : wondered about that one.

: |> 	The same way you distinguish between the spontaneous creation
: |> of the Universe (the "Big Bang") and "God did it".
: 
: First, that's a very bad analogy.   Science produces evidence
: for the Big Bang as against other concrete *events*.   It does
: does not attempt to to ascribe a cause to this event - modulo 
: some speculation, clearly labelled as such.   If you wish, you
: can perfectly well have both "Big Bang" *and* "God did it".

	Let's see if I can defend this.  I could probably produce
a case history of a spontaneous recovery without an identified cause.  (I'm
racking my brains for the name of the man who was diagnosed with inoperable
cancer, decided to cure himself with humor, and lived for several years
longer before dying of something else.  Help!  He wrote a book
about it.)  Thus, you can have spontaneous recovery.  Lacking a cause,
you could also say "God did it", except in this case, he'd say "Laughing
did it".
	Without a cause for the Big Bang, as you said, you can have
the "Big Bang" and "God/Krishna/Odin/deity of choice did it".

: |> 	You can't.  That's where faith comes in.
: 
: Another bad analogy.   Mr Tun starts by saying that limbs have 
: been healed, etc, and comments that this is something "God did".
: I'm asking him, even if he has evidence that these *events* have
: taken place, how does he support ascribing a cause "God" to them.
: Why not some random cause?

	Ascribing the healing to a God, any god, requires that
particular faith.  That's what I said.
	Or in other words,
	THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE FOR IT!  Is this too obvious?  I'm
not trying to be obtuse.  Given lack of proven cause, cause can be
attributed to a supernatural entity on the basis of religious faith.
I think Lionel thinks that the healing itself is evidence that 
God did it.  I don't share Lionel's simplistic viewpoints.

: |> 	Again, the fountain of Lourdes in France has specific 
: |> criteria for what can be considered a "miraculous healing".  I 
: |> KNOW they exist, but don't know where to find them.  Whether or 
: |> not the healing is truly "miraculous" no doubt depends on the 
: |> perception of the individual.
: 
: Read what I wrote above.   This is exactly what I am asking
: Mr Tun.    I am saying: even if you can produce evidence that
: such and such a thing happened, you still have to convince us
: that this event is evidence of the existence of God - ie: God
: made the event happen - and not simply a spontaneous remission.

	It is only evidence to those who need it to strengthen
their belief in God.  I can't convince you (for that matter, I can't
CONVINCE myself).  I can believe it, though.
	If God could be proven to exist, there would be no need for
faith.  That would bring God into the realm of science, and then would
he be a supernatural God?  By definition, no longer.
	BTW, I hope you don't think I'm defending Lionel.  I'm not.

: This is another example of the ways in which Science and Religion
: are *not* symmetric.   There is no Faith involved in listing the
: evidence in favour of a Big Bang, and once you start ascribing 
: a cause to the Big Bang, you are quickly outside Science.

	Exactly.  Agreed.  I understand.  Read you loud and clear.
An incontrovertible statement.  Precisely right.  On the money.
Right on the old bazoo.  Bullseye.  Bingo.  Etc...

: However, produce a healed crocked leg, and I still want to
: know why you think God healed it.   If you don't think God 
: healed it, then it's not a particularly interesting leg.

	If I think God healed it, it's because I believe in a God
that can heal.  Could be that the leg grew back on its own, due to
some hyperfunctionality of the hypothalamus.  My anecdotal reading
memory recalls a recent Reader's Digest article about a baby born
partially undeveloped (heart), whose heart developed fully after
birth.  Amazing.  Some might ascribe that to God, others to a 
an amazing natural anomaly.  Take your pick.

	Does that make sense, Jon?  I hope so.  Didn't want to
offend you or anything.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.origins