Spontaneous Remission, are they miracles?

[notoppings]

Are they miracles? Some cases as documented in the International Medical Commission at Lourdes France seem to say so. "These cases are sudden complete and without medical treatment. These cases appear to involve some of the same pathways as remission but consideration shall be given to the possibility that the altered states of prayer. religious faith and meditation may allow the process of self-repair greater freedom to operate"

What is remission? Some say the reduction in size or the absence of a know disease agent i.e. cancer or tumor. Proven through x-ray or biopsy left untreated, where upon follow up is disease free. These cases happen all the time in Western Medical facilities and can not be attributed to a known medical therapy or cure.

So what is the mechanism behind *Spontaneous Remission*? Is it simply the minds ability to heal the body? Or do you think it is Divine intervention?

[Homini Lupus]

Whatever it is, I think the explanation should depend on the method you intend to use. A man of science should use a positivist method to try to understand what is happening, even if the man of faith may be right. And if I benefit of the spontaneous remission I don't care too much about the possible axplanations as long as I'm healed (obviously I would like to understand, but the question is marginal).

[PHS Philip]

Just because something isn't yet understood doesn't mean it needs to have any supernatural cause. It just means that our bodies have even more ingenious mechanisms for self defense.

[Reon]

I think, to an extent, it's human will, not 'gods' will. I'm not saying that people who want to live will live, is just that it might be a factor in it.

[Monte314]

There is a notion called "the god of the gaps", that says we tend to attribute exactly those things we can't explain to supernatural causes; but when one of these mysteries is explained, it is reclaimed for "science". Hence, "god" exists only in the gaps between things we believe we understand. Of course, as the gaps in our knowledge shrink, such a "god of the gaps" will shrink with them.

As for myself, I think everything that happens includes the immediate involvement of God (i.e., that God is "immanent"). Therefore, as my understanding and appreciation of God's creation grows, He grows with it. He is seen to be more and more marvelous as new wonders are encountered.

So, is God involved when someone's disease "spontaneously" remits? Yes. Is God involved when someone's disease kills them. Yes. What about all the stuff in between? Yes.

[Saint]

Dunno. Is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome a miracle?

Let's generalize this more:

Is something "good" that happens that we don't know the cause of, a miracle?

Is something "bad" that happens that we don't know the cause of, a miracle?

Monte has already touched upon this. He questions that, if you'd believe this, why bother with the word miracle?

I don't believe in any gods, so attributing anything, good or bad as a miracle seems weird to me. Attributing only unknown goods and not unknown bads as works of a god seems even weirder. I can respect how Monte is consistent here.

[thegnat]

Just because something isn't yet understood doesn't mean it needs to have any supernatural cause. It just means that our bodies have even more ingenious mechanisms for self defense.

Though it doesn't prove against any supernatural cause...

I don't know if spontaneous remission is God or someone's body's sheer luck at getting the proper predisposition to fight x or y disease. I can't prove either. And I'm open to either option.

[NephilimAzrael]

And what of sheer ignorance. Not aware of "God" or the disease that ailed him. Would it really matter whether it was divine intervention if he lived due to remission? He certainly would not consider it a matter of miraculous occurrence.

[Linwenilid]

There is a notion called "the god of the gaps", that says we tend to attribute exactly those things we can't explain to supernatural causes; but when one of these mysteries is explained, it is reclaimed for "science". Hence, "god" exists only in the gaps between things we believe we understand. Of course, as the gaps in our knowledge shrink, such a "god of the gaps" will shrink with them.

As for myself, I think everything that happens includes the immediate involvement of God (i.e., that God is "immanent"). Therefore, as my understanding and appreciation of God's creation grows, He grows with it. He is seen to be more and more marvelous as new wonders are encountered.

So, is God involved when someone's disease "spontaneously" remits? Yes. Is God involved when someone's disease kills them. Yes. What about all the stuff in between? Yes.

Excellent response. I agree with all of it.

As for the mechanics of spontaneous remission, there are plenty of things we humans don't have the tools to examine and/or understand, even with things we can touch with our hands, and I don't think I'll live long enough to see the day when scientists finally get a grasp on spiritual worlds through scientific methods, which to me, is possible. I rather have faith in God and accept my own limitations.

[Nanashi]

There is a notion called "the god of the gaps", that says we tend to attribute exactly those things we can't explain to supernatural causes; but when one of these mysteries is explained, it is reclaimed for "science". Hence, "god" exists only in the gaps between things we believe we understand. Of course, as the gaps in our knowledge shrink, such a "god of the gaps" will shrink with them."
That's been bothering me because it seems silly to say something is scientific if it is known and spiritual if it is not. If we have both known and unknown they could both be spiritually-based, and w/o metaphysics, we have really no answer in regard to the worlds' systems and happenings for "Why?" I posit that even 'the furtherance of the species' is used by some people as a metaphysical response (since it is a 'reason' or purpose), but that it simply brings up the question again:"Why?"

If there is no God, we can only attribute everything to science (even that which is yet unknown by us would still have a logical reason, and I believe it does), and we can say there is no meaning; however, I still discern patterns and order physically & mentally, so I know that reasons for things exist, so we would still have no reason for the "Why?" if God does not exist, hence my being a gnostic theist & modified Christian existentialist.
Of course all of this reasoning is for naught if we remember we are subjective, realize we many not be able to trust our senses or even our own minds, for that matter, and that is why I say, insofar as I am able to know anything...I know there is a God, which could be re-phrased with 'believe' in place of both 'know's.
So pretty much, to me, God could not-exist if I can't trust my reason and experience but still could if the same perceptions couldn't be trusted, but God must exist if I can trust my reason & experiences.

I can only imagine the insults and attacks burgeoning at the other keyboards, but this is a forum, and I was thinking about how I truly see it.

As for myself, I think everything that happens includes the immediate involvement of God (i.e., that God is "immanent"). Therefore, as my understanding and appreciation of God's creation grows, He grows with it. He is seen to be more and more marvelous as new wonders are encountered.
I find myself a bit more in line with a Benjamin Franklin 'clockmaker' approach most of the time, while I, like you, have my concept of God increase with additional recognitions by the scientific world of reasons for previous mysteries. This view of mine, imo, allows for Deity foreknowledge without interference but with safety measures/nets, allows human freedom and a loving God, and requires that death be not the worst thing that could happen to a person or not negative enough for the creation of people to not be undertaken. Also, this would require time being created by the Deity so that the Deity could be above time/laws of universe but has chosen to implement them. Otherwise, the deity would be less powerful (b/c human actions would be unknown & the serious implications of creating life would be unknown, and there would necessarily be something binding the deity against the will of the Deity--time.) I suppose one could also argue that the deity is sort of hampered by time but has foreknowledge of all that could occur if certain things were created and still satisfy the (in my mind) necessary conditions of ensured liberty for both the deity and humans and of a positive stance of the deity towards the humans. I think this view of things being set up could also be in-line with your perception that happenings are metaphysically divine--it just has to do with the timing. :)

I spewed. I regret that. Now I'm tired. I may feel up to modifying errors later--when I'm not so pooped.

[ThaiGreenTea]

I don't believe it's a miracle. I believe it's a freak accident which actually worked in the person's favor.


Miracle's don't exist. =)

[AgentofGaming]

I'd say miraculous recovery but not exactly divine.

Reminds me of this website where spontaneous remission was an example argument for this website
Why Won't God Heal Amputees? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (Credit to Rei for link)

[xtremegeek]

As someone who works in the healthcare industry designing and installing technology, I have to question the original test results of someone who is diagnosed with cancer then "miraculously" is cured a few months later. I don't think people in the U.S. fully understand how bad technicians are who run the lab and radiology equipment. I will never, ever allow myself to be diagnosed based on one set of lab values and one set of MRIs or one biopsy. There's too much that technicians screw up in lab and radiology. Hospital labs and radiology departments are staffed with screw-up technicians. It doesn't matter how good the technology is, it's still utilized by unqualified individuals who don't give a rat's a** about what they are doing. And the doctors are too busy to suspect that perhaps the tests were screwed up; plus insurance companies often won't pay for a second set. Even if one decides to get a "second opininion" it's based on the original test results; new tests are almost never conducted.

[athenian200]

So what is the mechanism behind *Spontaneous Remission*? Is it simply the minds ability to heal the body? Or do you think it is Divine intervention?

I think it's good luck. Normally these things don't go away by themselves, but it's possible that something went wrong with the replication of the cells that caused it to destroy itself, something in the immune system or the body's restore systems managed to work in an unusual way and fix something that couldn't normally be fixed, etc.

I don't see any evidence that it only happens in cases that involve prayer, however, or that prayer was the contributing factor in cases where it was involved. If they documented every instance of spontaneous remission, and every instance of prayer in these situations, I don't think they would match up almost perfectly.

[Megalomania]

There is a notion called "the god of the gaps", that says we tend to attribute exactly those things we can't explain to supernatural causes; but when one of these mysteries is explained, it is reclaimed for "science". Hence, "god" exists only in the gaps between things we believe we understand. Of course, as the gaps in our knowledge shrink, such a "god of the gaps" will shrink with them.

As for myself, I think everything that happens includes the immediate involvement of God (i.e., that God is "immanent"). Therefore, as my understanding and appreciation of God's creation grows, He grows with it. He is seen to be more and more marvelous as new wonders are encountered.

So, is God involved when someone's disease "spontaneously" remits? Yes. Is God involved when someone's disease kills them. Yes. What about all the stuff in between? Yes.


This is also what I believe. You didn't happen to read C.S Lewis' Miracles did you? It just so happens I'm reading it at the moment and your argument is very similar to his. If anyone wants to read more about miracles I suggest reading it.

[zibber]

I'm happy for anyone who "miraculously" recovered, and almost fully understand how they would attribute it to something mysterious that somehow chose them, out of all the cancer patients on the planet, to survive (not as arrogant as it seems.. well, maybe it is), but this is just insane luck.

it simply brings up the question again:"Why?"

...

we would still have no reason for the "Why?"

Is it a valid question, though? This "why" seems like the big restriction for some people, the thing holding them back from a full break with spirituality/theism. "Why?" implies a reason, some intentionality. The question is so anthropocentric it hurts.

Miracle's don't exist. =)

I rarely do this, but.. MIRACLES! NO APOSTROPHE!! :P

[Nanashi]

Is it a valid question, though? This "why" seems like the big restriction for some people, the thing holding them back from a full break with spirituality/theism. "Why?" implies a reason, some intentionality. The question is so anthropocentric it hurts.

I see your point. I actually considered this for hours yesterday. Why do we need a 'why'?
I tried to include in my post the idea that seeing reasons for things in everyday life has shaped my view that there are reasons. I've never encountered, to my knowledge, anything random. Even as an INTJ, who does not first consider emotions, I can comprehend that while someone may be exhibiting an emotional outburst which appears incongruous to the situation at hand, he is emotionally drained and worried and insecure because his girlfriend dumped him or his car got towed. It is a coping mechanism--trying to make sense of this life we've found ourselves conscious in, trying to discern a framework after repeated exposure to data. Does that mean it's wrong?

As far as my question being anthropocentric--I have a unique and separate human consciousness (as far as I can tell--no I'm not being facetious), which is necessarily anthropocentric.