|
John Paul II a saint?
posted by GJ on March 30, 2007 @ 10:23AM
According to this story we have a nun who apparently was cured of her Parkinson's Disease overnight, and that she and others are attributing this miracle to John Paul II. Of course, for those who don't know, you must have at least one miracle attributed to you in order to be declared a saint.
I'll confess--this whole saint business was always a little weird to me, even back when I wasn't doing the non-belief thing. I mean, God is the all-powerful being here, so any miracles have to be attributed to he / she / it, right? (I'm going to use he from here one out, forgive me for being lazy). So what does the saintly person do to get the miracle attributed to them?
Oh, wait, I think I see. You pray to the dead person (say, John Paul II) and if you get what you prayed for, it's a miracle from God that can be attributed to this dead person. Ergo, this dead person interceded with God on your (or your prayer's target's) behalf, so the miracle is attributed to the dead person. Once we've convinced ourselves of this, we then basically say "they were such a good person when they were alive" and declare them a saint. Well, technically, the average Joe doesn't, the bigwigs in the church do. They know better that we do. Or something like that.
Here's a problem: afflictions, including disease and cancers, go away on their own all the time...sometimes without any medical treatment. Our bodies have significant resources to fight off these problems...and even against the nastier ones, sometimes we win without any help.
Scientists study these cases when they can, in order to glean information that might lead to a cure for that affliction. What is different about this person that made them recover, or made them immune? Can it be replicated in other victims to help them? That's what science is all about.
Religion, being built on myth rather than science, says, no, it was obviously a miracle! In this nun's case, people were actively praying for her in the name of John Paul II, and she was cured! It's a miracle, cut-and-dry.
The scientists look at the cured person, and often find one of two things: (1) they were misdiagnosed to begin with, and what they had was something else entirely. That item did respond to a treatment, and the symptoms vanished. No mystery there, except the how and why of the misdiagnose. (2) The person has some gene that grants resistivity, or ingested / was exposed to something that provided some benefit, or was sick with some other condition that competed with the obvious one and destroyed it.
In any of those cases, they work on proof--because they want something they can take to cure others with, so it had better be repeatable and consistent. So, off it goes to the labs for testing. Sometimes a cure is found--more often, just more knowledge is gained that brings us closer to a cure.
On the other side, the religious folk don't have proof. They have hearsay, poor logical induction, and their belief, and nothing else. You say, of course, why is this a bad thing?
Two reasons:
1. They are declaring a person's recovery the work of God. Therefore, science doesn't need to explain it (and they'd prefer that they didn't, lest it shatter the illusion they've constructed). Active denial of science is one bad effect--the other being lack of additional knowledge gained about a possible cure. They both suck.
2. They then elevate this person to saint--and then, anything this person did during their life can be held as a good example to others. Let's face it, nobody lives a perfect life. People with sinister aims can pick out the examples in this saint's life that fit their agenda, and push it on the faithful: "See--God favored this person for what he or she did, so we should emulate them!" Of course, God didn't favor the person, we did. And the one with the agenda is obvious looking to only highlight what works for him, be it good or bad. This is the hideous logic that can lead to blind faith in stupid commands--it's the genesis of religious terrorism, be it homegrown (abortion bombers) or overseas (like you need an example).
This is just one example of silliness in religion. It doesn't afflict just Christianity--all of them are silly on some level, because at the end of the day, they are human-created edifices. Humans are silly. God is supposed to be perfect..
Oh, back to the concept of miracles. Now, this gal and her pals were praying to JP II to intercede for her. How many millions of others did the same, and got nothing from God? That's not the actions of a benevolent God--that either due to a totally arbitrary God, or an evil one. I'll give you a hint--a total arbitrary God is what we science-based folks call chance.
Chance simple states that her affliction was cured by her own body. She then framed that by her religious background, and tada, it was a miracle!
So...what do you think? Saints / miracles? Fantasy or reality? Harmless or harmful?
| Tags: woo, religion
|
