site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   2177 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 17, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah, I think a lot of atheists just don't really look into it, or assume religious people don't actually experience scientifically evaluated miracles in the modern age, because it would be really challenging to their worldview.

Or we look into them after reading a post like this and find a bunch of hallucinations and poorly-investigated crap that passes for natural phenomenon. Dare you to go start a top-level about your scientifically evaluated miracles and how good the evidence is.

Most of the primary resources are not on the internet, so it wouldn't be an interesting discussion. I could say, "Giovanni Savino's eye was completely blown out in an explosion, Savino has an feeling of a Catholic Saint's presence, then his eye was back. This is attested to by contemporaneous medical records and interviews with witnesses." And then someone would want a scan of the medical records, which I do not have. And so it goes.

If you are a physician or scientist you can contact the Lourdes Medical Bureau. Its records are open to any physician or scientist who wants to make their own investigation or challenge any particular case recognized as “miraculous.” They have incredibly stringent criteria and throw out 95% of cases most others consider to be genuine healing miracles.

And then someone would want a scan of the medical records, which I do not have. And so it goes.

But that's a totally legitimate response to a highly unusual claim without much more evidence than a report by a highly biased source. Given what we know about human cognition, social dynamics, the malleability of memory etc. it's completely reasonable to dismiss this out of hand unless a durable record of this miracle, e.g. photos of his blown off skull on the construction site and the happily healed Savino in his hospital bed the next day after, exist. If it weren't, on what grounds do you (presumably, given its pagan association) dismiss this list of ancient miracle healings performed by the gods Asklepios and Apollo at the sanctuary at Epidauros?

Why would I deny a list of ancient miracle healings performed by Apollo? God loves all His creatures and may bestow on any of us a healing if we try to reach out to Him the way we know how.

Actual people's medical records are not going to be available online in the clear. I'm sorry. If you're a doctor/researcher you can request them. Does the Church need to digitize more? No question there. Maybe in 100 years a lot of the original copies of witness testimony will be searchable online. They are working on it, but due to the age of the documents and the fact that many are handwritten it is being done with great care.

For the Catholic Church to recognize a miracle healing in modern times, there needs to be objective criteria indicating the disease before the healing, the healing needs to be spontaneous, and it needs to be complete, no remission.

  1. The 1st criterion is that the disease is serious, of unfavorable prognosis.
  2. Secondly, the disease must be known and listed by medicine.
  3. Thirdly, this disease must be organic, lesional, that is to say that there are objective, biological, radiological criteria, everything that currently exists in medicine; which means that still today we will not recognize cures of pathologies without specific objective criteria such as psychic, psychiatric, functional, nervous diseases, etc. (this does not mean that we cannot cure these diseases
  4. Fourth, there should not be treatment to which healing could be attributed.
  5. The 5th criterion concerns the moment of healing itself: healing must be sudden, sudden, instantaneous, immediate and without convalescence.
  6. Finally, after the healing, there are still two criteria: it must not simply be a regression of the symptoms but a return of all the vital functions, and finally, that it is not simply a remission but a healing, that is to say, lasting and definitive.

The existence of objective medical records indicating a disease that can be measured by outside instruments, and then the instantaneous reversal of the disease which is long lasting, is objective criteria and cannot be dismissed as "human cognition, social dynamics, the malleability of memory."

This is an interesting article published by an athiest medical historian who studied the Vatican archives for three years. Dr. Duffin notes:

What diseases were healed through the intercession of saints? Cancer, orthopedic, and neurological illnesses were steadily prevalent in all time periods, but later cases demanded ever-more-stringent proof of diagnosis with, for example, tissue pathology in cancer, X-ray films in orthopedics, and imaging scans or nerve-conduction studies in neurology.

She goes on to report:

Further to my surprise, the Vatican does not and never did recognize miracles in people who eschew orthodox medicine to rely solely on faith. It strives to consider the latest in medical science; it does not want to be manipulated by the wiles of sensationalists or the aspirations of the gulli- ble. Virtually all healing files referred to the treating physicians by name, even if they did not testify in person. Only two complete files of physical healings made no reference to physicians: both were from the mid-1750s in the cause of John of Kanty (d. 1473).34 Doctors crowd these records.
The increasing medicalization of the Western world is evident. From 1800 forward, and across the complete transcripts that I have examined, the average number of doctors making an appearance in each record increases from approximately two to seven. The trend is apparent when expressed either by year of canonization (as shown in Figure 2) or by year of cure. Prior to 1800, the opinions and actions of physicians were described by nuns, monks, or priests; perhaps greater credence was given to witnesses in holy orders, or possibly, doctors were uninvited or unwilling to testify. By the late eighteenth century, however, attend- ing physicians were routinely summoned to give in-person descriptions of the illnesses and the care they had delivered. Even in the earliest records, medical men were mentioned, whether they testified or not. The same was true for other health providers, including dentists and midwives.

New technologies appear in the Vatican records soon after their invention; the aforementioned Wassermann test, elaborated from 1901 to 1906 to identify syphilis, was used in this 1929 case in its capacity as a “scientific fact,” equated with venereal disease.46 Medicalization is appar- ent in the doctors’ words and deeds recorded in many other files. For example, the stethoscope, first publicized in 1819, was used for diagnosis in a miracle worked eighteen years later.47 Three cases had been healed of respiratory ailments in that eleven-year interval where no stethoscope was used; following this miracle, the diagnosis of most heart or lung problems entailed auscultation as a matter of course. A thermometer was used in an Italian woman cured of postpartum fever in 1881.48 Similarly, as tubercu- losis waxed in importance throughout the nineteenth century, the failure to demonstrate Koch’s bacillus to confirm the diagnosis was prominent in medical reaction to a cure effected in 1885, only three years after Koch’s discovery.49 Photography appeared in a file from 1889.50 X rays together with fluoroscopy appeared in the miracle files less than five years after Roentgen’s famous demonstration.51 Blood pressure measurements soon followed.

Also she found many records of proposed miracles being rejected due to insufficient diagnostic criteria:

Testifying in 1908, a Corsican doctor justified his failure to order a bacteriological examination on the pleural effusion of a forty-nine-year- old nun during her illness three years earlier; he was forced to the abject admission that his diagnosis of tuberculosis had been merely “clinical.” With the benefit of hindsight, the three expert colleagues refused to believe that the nun’s ailment, though “grave,” had been tuberculosis and, therefore, beyond a natural cure.62 This disputed healing was not decisive for the pro- cess of Theophilus of Corte (d. 1740); more evidence was needed.63

This is a funny anecdote:

In 1834, a professorial expert criticized his more humble colleague’s use of bleeding some nineteen years earlier in the care of a middle-aged woman with fever; perversely, the supposed medical error made the cure all the more remarkable in his expert (but anachronistic) eyes: not only had the woman recovered from her illness, she had also managed to survive her doctor’s backward treatment.

How severe are these illnesses that are getting miracle claims?

In 1937, an expert physician claimed (quite wrongly at the time) that X-ray-proven tuberculosis was “axiomatically fatal” in the face of any treatment, whether natural or supernatural; he pointed to the patient’s 1926 recovery to insist that the treating physician’s diagnosis of tuberculosis must have been wrong in the first place.

I recommend reading the whole report, it's quite fun and full of interesting things. But the point is, the records are being kept in a complete form, the information gathered is as concrete as possible, reviewed by experts in the fields, and much different from some random rumor that could just be hearsay.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats