The conversion (or more correctly, reversion) of former agnostic Joe Schmid to Catholicism last month was motivated principally by what Schmid views as overwhelming evidence for the occurrence of miracles which, he argues, vindicate Catholic doctrinal claims. Now, Schmid readily acknowledges that miracle claims won’t impress an avowed naturalist – which is why he created a seven-hour video presenting a cumulative case for theism, thereby establishing at least the possibility of miraculous events occurring. In this post, I won’t be discussing Schmid’s case for theism, which I view as a theological curate’s egg: good in parts (and bad in others). Instead, I’ll be focusing on the miracles Schmid cites to bolster his case for Catholicism. Can they prove his case, and how well do they stack up? Because I was raised in the faith Schmid has returned to, I’ve done a lot of research on the miracles he discusses, and I’ve put together some good links which readers may find helpful.
Joe Schmid makes his case for God’s existence in a 7-hour video, titled, The BEST EVER Cumulative Case for God. See here for a 12-hour critical review of Schmid’s arguments for theism by Nathan Ormond (Digital Gnosis) and James Fodor. My own view is that Ormond and Fodor effectively refute the argument from psycho-physical harmony and the fine-tuning argument, but fail to adequately address the argument from beauty. There are, of course, many other powerful arguments for God’s existence. Schmid, for his part, makes a rather weak response to the atheistic argument from evil, in my opinion: he needs to give a better account of why God allows horrendous evils. That’s all I wish to say on Schmid’s case for theism.
Can miracles be used to argue for the truth of a particular religion, such as Catholicism?
Christian author Glen Scrivener has posted an excellent two-hour Youtube video in response to Joe Schmid, from a Protestant perspective: I Watched 25+ Hours of Joe Schmid—I Have Thoughts.
Derek Lambert of Mythvision has also put up a one-hour video, titled, Joe Schmid’s 20-hour Miracle Case Dies in One Verse, pointing out that the Hebrew Bible itself repeatedly declares that God sometimes sends fake miracles and lying spirits to test the loyalty of his followers. Also, the New Testament declares that there will be false miracles (signs and wonders) that will deceive, if possible, even the elect (Mt 24:24), and that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 13:14). Hence no miracle can be treated as vindicating a religious doctrine.
How well do Catholic miracle claims stack up?
For the benefit of readers, I’ll mention that an ex-Catholic YouTuber who calls himself Kevin NonTradiCath has created a website debunking many popular Catholic miracles. I should also note that Catholics are not required to believe in any of these miracles, as they relate to private revelations; in approving them, the Church merely declares them worthy of belief. In this post, I’ll examine the following alleged Catholic miracles:
1. Padre Pio
2. The Lourdes miracles and the visions of St. Bernadette
3. Our Lady of Fatima
4. Our Lady of Guadeloupe
5. St. Catherine Laboure and the Miraculous Medal
6. The levitating saint: St. Joseph of Cupertino/Copertino
7. The Miracle of Calanda (in which God grew back an amputee’s leg)
8. Eucharistic miracles: Lanciano, Buenos Aires and Tixtla
9. Incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints
10. The Shroud of Turin
11. Exorcisms: Are demons real?
I haven’t included Our Lady of Zeitoun (Egypt) on this list because it is not a Catholic miracle (the apparitions took place on top of a Coptic church), not everyone saw a lady on top of the church (some simply saw a light), and the apparition did not speak, let alone confirm the truth of any religious claim.
1. Padre Pio
Kevin NonTradiCath has put up a Youtube video titled, St Padre Pio, or, a Case Study in Catholic Cults of Personality, debunking Padre Pio’s alleged miracles (stigmata, healings and bilocation), but clearing him of allegations of impropriety.
2. The Lourdes miracles and the visions of St. Bernadette
Kevin NonTradiCath has created an informative video titled, Our Lady of Lourdes, St. Bernadette Soubirous, Forest Fairies, Medical Malpractice & Pseudoscience, debunking the visions of St. Bernadette and the cures at Lourdes.
3. Our Lady of Fatima
By far the best critical article I have seen on the miracle of Fatima is one by the B.A. psychology graduate Evan Harkness-Murphy, over at her blog The Magpie: “Your Lady of Fatima – A Response to Ethan Muse” (September 13, 2025).
See also James Fodor’s in-depth discussion of the Fatima apparitions, titled, A Skeptical Analysis of the 1917 Marian Apparitions and Miracle of the Sun (very detailed: two hours long).
See also the article, “Fatima Miracle Claims All Wet” by Benjamin Radford in The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol 43 no. 3 (May/June 2019), questioning whether the witnesses to the solar miracle at Fatima were really soaking wet and whether their clothes miraculously dried in the space of a few minutes, as popularly claimed by Fatima devotees.
See, in addition, the article, “Did photos of the 1917 Miracle of the Sun at Fatima prove the sun was at an impossible place in the sky?” at the EukaryoteWrites blog, critiquing recent claims made by the priest Dr. Phillipe Dalleur (who’s cited on Joe Schmid’s video), on the basis of his interpretation of photos of the crowd at Fatima, that the solar miracle was actually caused by a second body in the sky, not the Sun. See here for Dalleur’s original article making the claims.
Kevin NonTradiCath has also made a highly informative video titled, The miracle of the sun at Fatima in 1917 was a natural event, not a miracle. Here is why, reviewing Fr. Stanley Jaki’s book, “God and the Sun at Fatima”, which invokes providentially-timed atmospheric ice crystals to explain the solar phenomena observed at Fatima. Kevin writes: “If you want to skip to to my favorite part, jump to the last chapter of the video, starting at 48:22. That is where I compare all the eyewitness testimony from Fatima to the sun miracle at Medjugorje caught on camera. I think that we can use that footage from Medjugorje in 2023 to try to make sense of the eyewitness testimony from Fatima, over 100 years earlier, in 1917.”
See also the following scientific article from 2003: “Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun” by Dr. Auguste Meessen, Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Louvain, B-1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. “Abstract: Apparitions are subjective experiences, but can be accompanied by “miracles of the sun”, observed and described by numerous witnesses. An extensive study of these phenomena reveals a set of characteristic features, suggesting the existence of an underlying mechanism. It is shown that the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial intervention is not sufficient to explain all observed facts, while this is possible in terms of natural, but very peculiar physiological processes. The proof results from personal experiments and reasoning, based on relevant scientific literature. Apparitions are more complex experiences, but the content of the “messages” raises theological problems. Moreover, it is necessary to relate these “mystical experiences” to new insights in psychological processes that involve altered states of consciousness. This subject calls urgently for continued, rigorous and responsible research.”
Please note also that the children’s descriptions of the apparition shifted over time. In the earliest 1917 interviews, the entity was described as a tiny, one-meter-tall girl wearing a short skirt, which heavily conflicted with the traditional, majestic Catholic depictions of the Virgin Mary popularized later.
Regarding the alleged prophecies made by the seers at Fatima, Kevin NonTradiCath has made a video titled, “The more you learn about the Miracle of Fatima, the less impressive it seems”. The video debunks three popular Catholic claims about Our Lady of Fatima: that she predicted the deaths of the visionaries Francisco and Jacinta (false: the earliest record of this alleged prediction is from 1927, more than seven years after their deaths); that she predicted the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II (also false: the earliest record of the prediction about WWII comes from a memoir Lucia wrote in 1941, two years after the outbreak of WWII); and that everybody at Fatima saw the Miracle of the Sun (false: we have records of people who were there and who saw nothing, and the number of recorded testimonies of people who saw the miracle comes to no more than a few dozen, despite the fact that at least 30,000 people are supposed to have been present, and we also have records of educated people who not only saw nothing but who were present at Fatima with several other friends or acquaintances who saw nothing, but who noted that less educated people witnessed the phenomenon).
Kevin Nontradicath has also created a video titled, Retconning Fatima: How Lucia Updated a Prophecy of Fatima about the End of World War I. Kevin NonTradiCath argues that Lucia herself was a fraud because of a failed prophecy she made and later retconned. Lucia said Our Lady told her to wait at the Cova da Iria (the site of the apparitions) because the Portuguese soldiers fighting in World War I would be returning soon, but actually the war didn’t end for another year. Lucia changed the prophecy in her 1941 memoir. Also, Lucia herself never saw the miracle of the sun on October 13th, 1917. Finally, the sign from God that she was referring to seems to have been the end of the war, rather than the solar miracle.
Kevin NonTradiCath has created another video, titled, Jacinta can’t save Lucia’s failed prophecy: A case against the Conditional Prophecy Defense. Note: this “conditional interpretation” is the defense that Joe Schmid leans on, in his online apologia, where he argues that what Our Lady really meant was that that IF people repented, the war would end today.
4. Our Lady of Guadeloupe
Kevin NonTradiCath has made a highly informative video titled, Juan Diego’s Tilma – An Examination of Six Common Claims about the legend of Our Lady of Guadeloupe.
5. The Miraculous Medal of St. Catherine Laboure
Kevin NonTradiCath, in his video, The Miraculous Medal, or, How to Eat Relics to Induce Marian Apparitions, argues that the Miraculous Medal is a pious fraud; curiously, Sister Catherine Laboure completely forgot about her visions of Our Lady for several years. Even more strangely, she declares that it was eating some clothes which had belonged to a Catholic saint that caused her to have visions of Our Lady!
6. The levitating saint: St. Joseph of Cupertino/Copertino
The well-attested miracle of the seventeenth-century flying friar, St. Joseph of Cupertino, is debunked by skeptic Joe Nickell in his article, “Secrets of ‘The Flying Friar’: Did St. Joseph of Copertino Really Levitate?” in The Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 42, No. 4 (July / August 2018). Here’s an AI overview of the article: Joe Nickell’s connection to Cupertino refers to his skeptical investigation of Saint Joseph of Cupertino (1603–1663), the 17th-century Italian Franciscan friar widely known in Catholic tradition as “The Flying Friar” due to numerous accounts of his ecstatic levitations. As a world-renowned professional paranormal investigator and skeptic, Nickell analyzed the historical claims of the friar’s flights — such as soaring to the high altar or carrying a heavy cross through the air — and published his findings in a detailed critique for the Skeptical Inquirer. Nickell’s Core Findings on the “Flying Friar”:
Rather than accepting the levitations as genuine miracles, Nickell attributed the accounts to a mix of natural human abilities, stagecraft, and severe historical distortion:
“Gross Exaggeration” in Biographies: Nickell pointed out that the primary biographical sources documenting these feats were published more than half a century after Joseph’s death. Over decades, oral traditions and legends heavily distorted the original events.
The Nature of the “Flights”: Historical records indicate that Joseph’s “levitations” often began with a loud shriek followed by a leap. Nickell noted that these incidents were better explained as energetic jumps or bounds rather than true floating. Observers, swept up in religious ecstasy and viewing him from below in dimly lit churches, easily misperceived these leaps as supernatural levitation.
Lack of Primary Evidence: The original sworn records used during the early stages of his canonization process are no longer available for independent scientific study, leaving investigators to rely on heavily biased second-hand accounts. Another, fairly balanced article on St. Joseph of Cupertino can be found here, on the Historical Blindness blog.
7. The Miracle of Calanda (in which God is said to have miraculously grown back the leg of an amputee named Miguel Pellicer, from Calanda, Spain, whose leg was surgically amputated in 1637, but allegedly grew back instantly in 1640)
The best take-down of this alleged miracle is Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid podcast, Miracle of Calanda. There’s also an excellent update on the original article, responding to Catholic critics and demonstrating that no doctor at the 1640 miracle trial ever testified that he’d personally amputated Miguel’s leg, casting doubt on claims that it had ever been amputated in the first place.
Here’s an excerpt from an AI-generated summary of the skeptical case against the miracle of Calanda:
Background and Claims The Event: In 1640, a Spanish peasant named Miguel Pellicer claimed his right leg—amputated two and a half years prior after a cart accident—miraculously regrew.
The Investigation: Local church and secular authorities, including a legal tribunal and the Inquisition, investigated the case and declared it a genuine miracle in 1641. Unlike many religious legends that develop centuries later, the documentation for Calanda began within days.
The Notarial Act (April 1, 1640): Just three days after the event, a local royal notary named Miguel Andreu and the parish priest travelled to Calanda. They recorded sworn statements from 10 eyewitnesses (including local officials and family members) who testified they saw Miguel with only one leg right before the event, and two legs right after.
The Canonical Process (June 1640 – April 1641): The Archbishop of Zaragoza, Pedro Apaolaza Ramírez, initiated a formal court to rigorously cross-examine the claims. Over nearly a year, 24 official witnesses gave testimony under oath.
The Hospital Staff Testimony: Crucially, the court called forward the professional secular staff from the General Hospital of Zaragoza where Miguel’s leg was treated. This included Juan de Estanga (the surgeon who ordered the amputation), Diego Millaruelo (the assistant surgeon who cut it off), and the hospital priest who buried the severed leg in the cemetery. The original manuscript — Copia literal y auténtica del proceso — remains preserved in the Zaragoza cathedral archives. It concludes with the Archbishop’s official ruling on April 27, 1641, declaring the limb restoration explicitly “wonderful and miraculous.”
Skeptical View: Critics argue that 17th-century investigations lacked modern scientific rigor, and extraordinary claims from the past rely entirely on anecdotal and biased testimony. While the 1640–1641 legal investigation by the Archbishop of Zaragoza looks incredibly thorough on paper, modern historians and critical researchers have identified several significant cracks, omissions, and systemic biases in the process. When evaluated by modern judicial or investigative standards, the “ironclad” legal record begins to show major vulnerabilities.
(i) The Complete Lack of Cross-Examination In a modern court, a witness’s claims are tested by a skeptical defense attorney who looks for contradictions.
The Crack: The Canonical Process was entirely one-sided. The tribunal was not trying to find a fraud; they were trying to validate a miracle to boost Catholic morale during the Counter-Reformation.
The Reality: Every single one of the 24 witnesses was a devout Catholic, and many stood to gain status, fame, or religious validation from the event. None of the witnesses were cross-examined aggressively, nor were they asked questions that might expose a hoax, such as whether they had ever closely examined Miguel’s “stump” without its bandages.
(ii) The Timeline Discrepancy (The Missing Two Years) The legal documents heavily rely on the testimony of the hospital staff in Zaragoza to prove the leg was actually amputated. However, a major chronological gap exists between the hospital and the miracle.
The Crack: The amputation took place in late 1637. The “miracle” occurred in March 1640.
The Reality: For over two full years between these events, Miguel was not living in the hospital. He was traveling the country as a wandering beggar. The Zaragoza hospital staff had not seen Miguel for years before he suddenly showed up in Calanda claiming his leg grew back. They could only testify to what they did in 1637, not to what Miguel’s leg looked like in the days or weeks leading up to the night of March 29, 1640.
(iii) The Power of “Social and Religious Pressure” Calanda was a small, deeply religious village. Once the rumor of a miracle exploded, it became socially dangerous to deny it.
The Crack: Local officials—including the notary Miguel Andreu, who arrived just three days later—were under immense pressure to confirm the event.
The Reality: If a local villager had suspected Miguel was a fraud who had simply unbound a hidden leg, speaking out would mean accusing their neighbors, the local priests, and eventually the Archbishop of lying. In 17th-century Spain, challenging a declared miracle could easily result in being investigated by the Inquisition for heresy or witchcraft. This created a powerful incentive for total conformity among the witnesses.
(iv) No Physical or Forensics Inspection of the “Regrown” Leg For an event centered entirely on a physical body part, the tribunal’s examination of the leg itself was remarkably superficial.
The Crack: The court relied almost purely on visual testimony (“we saw two legs where there used to be one”) rather than an objective physical or medical evaluation.
The Reality: No independent, outside physicians were brought in to physically manipulate the leg, test its bone structure, or verify if the “amputation scars” were genuine or merely skin blemishes. The court notes that the leg was pale, small, and weak at first — which perfectly matches what a leg looks like after being tightly bound and immobilized against a thigh for two years to fake an injury.
(v) The Disappearance of Key Records While the final summary document (the Proceso) survives, the actual raw investigative notes, daily logs, and initial interviews are missing.
The Crack: Historians pointing out cracks in the case note that we only have the “polished,” final version of the events compiled by the Church authorities.
The Reality: Any early contradictions, hesitant witnesses, or dissenting opinions that occurred during the year-long trial were completely scrubbed from the final official narrative to present a flawless, unanimous front to the public.
8. Eucharistic miracles: Lanciano, Buenos Aires, Tixtla and Sokolka
Cinematographer Cade Bradley interviews Kevin NonTradiCath on the shoddy science behind Eucharistic miracles, in his video, Eucharistic Miracles Are FAKE – The ‘Science’ Is Way Worse Than You’ve Been Told.
Surprisingly, the best critiques of Eucharistic miracles have come from Christians: from Dr. Maxime Georgel (a Protestant who acknowledges the reality of miracles) and from Catholic scientists Stacy Trasancos and Kelly Kearse.
(a) The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy
First, here’s Catholic apologist Ethan Muse’s video arguing for the reality of the Miracle of Lanciano: If You’re Skeptical of Eucharistic Miracles, You Need to See This. (At 22:00, interviewer Matt Fradd puts forward a conspiracy theory suggesting that the actual piece of flesh that’s currently preserved in the Host at Lanciano may not be centuries old, but may date back to only 1970. Muse responds to this conspiracy theory.) There are several high-quality videos and online essays critiquing the miracle of Lanciano. The most in-depth response is the Response to Ethan Muse On the Alleged Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano by Dr. Maxime Georgel (July 28, 2026), which has been translated to English and reproduced over at Javier Perdomo’s substack. Dr. Georgel makes a point-by-point reply to Muse, arguing that in order to prove a miracle, it has to be shown that the flesh and blood on display at Lanciano is human flesh and blood, that it was once a consecrated host, that its preservation across the centuries is miraculous, and that we can rule out fraud. Dr. Georgel regards each of these claims as questionable.
“The fake Lanciano WHO report” by Catholic chemist Dr. Stacy Trasancos, is a pretty devastating expose of the oft-repeated apologetic assertion that a WHO report backed the claims made in 1971 by a Catholic doctor regarding the alleged presence of flesh in the Host at Lanciano. (Incidentally, you can also read my article, “Catholic Eucharistic miracles debunked by Catholic chemist Dr. Stacy Trasancos” at The Skeptical Zone.)
See also the article, “Exaggerations and Eucharistic Miracles” by Stacy Trasancos, in Crisis magazine. This article discusses the work of Catholic science teacher Kelly Kearse, exposing Eucharistic miracles and showing that bacteria can duplicate many of the results.
Kelly Kearse has recently written a PubMed paper titled, “Scientific analysis of shared AB blood type among relics and eucharistic miracles: A reply to Franco Serafini’s commentary” (Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2026). See also his Youtube video, “Scientific Analysis of Eucharistic Miracles” (11 July 2025), a 33-minute talk given to the Society of Catholic Scientists at the Catholic University of America, in which Dr. Kearse shows that non-consecrated wafers placed in water for 7 to 10 days display reddish stains, suggests that fungal DNA may account for the reddish stains commonly found on hosts in Eucharistic miracles, and recommends publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals as the best way to rule out alternative, naturalistic explanations of Eucharistic miracles.
Over at his Youtube channel Capturing Catholicism, Cameron Bertuzzi has recently hit back at the skeptics, with a lengthy one-hour Youtube video presented by the French Catholic apologist Matthieu Lavagna, titled, “Demolishing EVERY Objection to Eucharistic Miracles” (July 5, 2026). Please note that Lavagna is not a scientist; he has a degree in philosophy and theology and he’s pursuing studies in mathematics. As Lavagna himself acknowledges, the main oddity in the Catholic evidence for Eucharistic miracles is that there is no DNA of Jesus’ Eucharistic flesh. Lavagna’s lame reply is that maybe God doesn’t want to reveal the details of Christ’s body. Nor does he want people to clone Jesus. Overall, the shrill, defensive tone of Lavagna’s presentation is very off-putting.
(b) Recent Eucharistic Miracles
Kevin NonTradiCath has created a video debunking the Eucharistic miracle at Buenos Aires, Argentina, dating from 1992 to 1996, titled, Eucharistic Miracles at Buenos Aires – An Ex-Catholic Perspective.
Kevin NonTradiCath has also made a video debunking the Eucharistic miracle at Tixtla, Mexico, titled, Eucharistic Miracle Tier List: Tixtla, Mexico – An ex-Catholic’s Opinion.
More recently, Kevin NonTradiCath has put up a video titled, The Eucharistic Miracle at Sokolka Poland, 2008 – An ex-Catholic Perspective.
Kevin NonTradiCath has also made another video titled, Meet the Quack | Snake Oil Salesman who leads Eucharistic Miracle Investigations for the Church, which calls into severe question the judgement of one of the scientists investigating the miracles, Dr. Ricardo Gomez.
9. Incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints
Kevin NonTradiCath has made a video titled, Incorrupt Bodies of Saints – An Ex-Catholic Perspective, showing that many saints’ bodies were artificially preserved, while others were stored in cool environments that would have been conducive to mummification. In a few cases, flooding actually helped prevent decay!
10. The Shroud of Turin
Digital Gnosis (Nathan Ormond) and Luciferian Engineer (James Fodor) have put up a lengthy video titled, Unravelling the Shroud of Turin – Bad Apologetics 30, debunking the Shroud.
11. Exorcism: Are Demons Real? Here’s a CNN article on Yale-trained psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gallagher, who earnestly believes that demons are real: “When exorcists need help, they call him” (August 4, 2017).
A year before the CNN article was published, New England skeptic Dr. Steve Novella had already debunked the claims of psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gallagher, that demons are real, in his article, “A Psychiatrist falls for exorcism” on his Neurologica blog, “The Ness” (July 5, 2016).
Here is Dr. Novella’s response to the above-cited CNN article: “Token Skepticism about Exorcism” (August 7, 2017).
See also this article by skeptic Brian Dunning on one celebrated exorcism: “Exorcism: The case of Annaliese”. Here’s an excerpt from Dunning’s article: “Today doctors can look at cases like Anneliese, and though we cannot make a reliable diagnosis without an examination, it seems clear that she suffered from a variety of conditions including dissociative identity disorder (formerly called multiple personality disorder). It’s usually comorbid with other psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia, from which Anneliese probably suffered as well; and chronic stress is indeed one potential cause of her epileptic seizures.”
On the psychological harm done by exorcism, and why it constitutes psychological abuse, see this article at the WhatsTheHarm website. Here’s a quote from Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid article, “Exorcism: The case of Annaliese”, which references this website: “Of course, Anneliese was not the only victim of exorcism. The excellent website WhatsTheHarm.net lists over a thousand such cases, most from the recent decade, and most from Western countries. It is not ancient history and it is not limited to developing countries. Hundreds of professional exorcists walk among us, today, seeking critically ill psychiatric patients upon whom they can shout charms and sprinkle water. Many of these cases recount shocking tortures. Drownings, crucifixions, burnings, stabbings, all in the name of exorcism, and most to innocent children or the mentally ill.”
General Criticism
See Kevin NonTradiCath’s video, Miracle or Marketing? Exposing the Lack of Science in Catholic Miracles (Featuring Skeptasmic).
I’m skeptical of miracles.
Sorry, but I’m not going to watch a 7 hour video to see what Joe Shmid has to say. That he considers the Shroud of Turin to be a miracle is more than enough to doubt. I have spent some time looking at that, and the Shroud looks to me to be likely a fake.
Hi, Vincent. While you haven’t stated so explicitly, my impression from your OP is that you reject all of the miracles you surveyed. Is that accurate? Are there any accounts of miracles that you do accept as authentic, Catholic or otherwise?
Besides my doubts about their authenticity, another objection I have to miracles as evidence for Christianity is this: assuming miracles are real, what is their purpose?
If the purpose is to bolster faith, are they really the best that the omnipotent creator of the universe could do? Why would God be obsessed with weird things like making someone fly or keeping bodies from decomposing when there are countless things he could do that would be far more impressive and far more likely to win converts and strengthen believers? (Not to mention far more beneficial to humanity.) Why not have a monk pray earnestly and experience a vision of how to build an effective fusion reactor on one day, a cure for cancer on the next, and solutions to all seven Millennium Prize problems in mathematics on the third? Why limit himself to miracles that are so easily doubted? (I make a similar argument regarding the Bible. If God wants to convey his message to the world, why use a book as crappy and untrustworthy as the Bible? If there really is an omniscient, omnipotent God who wants us to know him, he could do far better.)
Or if the purpose of miracles is to help people in certain dire situations, why are they so rare and selective? For instance, why regrow the leg of one particular Spanish peasant when there have been millions of amputees whom God ignored?
It doesn’t make sense. Far more likely that the miracles are bogus, or at the very least that the God who performs them is not the God Christians imagine him to be.
To both Neil and keiths: Yep!
I can’t say whether Schmid will eventually deconvert again, but I do think he’ll come to regret the rather manic way in which he has re-embraced Catholicism. Here’s an example from a discussion he had with Matt Fradd. I recommend watching this part of the video as well as reading the quote, because his intonation and body language give you a better feel for his missionary zeal. You’ll see why I chose the word ‘manic’:
He thinks there is such a thing as “the atheist mind”, that we’re “struggling” and that he can help us “work through it”. Sorry, Joe, but most of us are quite comfortable in our rejection of Christianity (and Hinduism and Islam and Scientology…). I get that it was a struggle for you, but you’re projecting that onto us.
He was clearly longing for reasons to return to the fold and searching for an intellectual justification for doing so, and now he thinks he’s found it.
Hi Neil Rickert, keiths and aleta. Thank you for your comments. I’m pretty skeptical of the miracles I’ve listed, with one exception: healing miracles. However, I don’t think that these cures prove anything: they leave us with a giant question mark.
There’s an atheist doctor named Jacalyn Duffin who’s investigated some of the miraculous cures recorded in the Vatican archives. She acknowledges that they’re medically inexplicable – e.g. spontaneous remission of a brain tumor. She’s even written a book about some of these cures. As far as I’m aware, she’s still an atheist. Genuinely inexplicable does not necessarily mean caused by God, although many might make that inference. Also, as Joe Schmid himself acknowledges in his video, it’s not just Catholics who experience miraculous healing: he discusses the case of a Protestant woman named Barbara Schneider. And I’m sure there are many people of other faiths who have experienced such cures. Regarding the cures at Lourdes, I’m somewhat cautious, as the early medical records of these cures were incomplete and sloppy. However, I’m quite willing to grant that a few of them may be beyond the power of science to explain.
I think it’s nice to live in a universe where good and scientifically inexplicable events occasionally happen. What they prove is another matter: not much.
I think Keiths is right to criticize the Catholic miracles cited by Joe Schmid for being utterly ineffective as proofs of the reality of God. People at one point on the planet seeing the sun zigzagging around in the sky while people elsewhere do not, doesn’t violate any law of nature, so where’s the miracle? Bleeding holes in someone’s hands or wrists sound bizarre rather than miraculous, and even levitation ranks pretty low on a list of miraculous feats. What’s more, it benefits absolutely no-one, so why on earth would an omnibenevolent God want to pull off such a freakish stunt? Eucharistic miracles fare even worse as supernatural signs: after all, if they’re the flesh and blood of the risen Christ, then they should be physically indestructible, but clearly they’re not.
Neil mentioned the Shroud of Turin. I wrote a piece on TSZ a few years ago, in which I discussed some online articles by Catholic science teacher Hugh Farey, debunking popular “proofs” of the Shroud’s authenticity and arguing for a medieval date for the Shroud. Good for him!
Finally, I think Joe Schmid will probably come to regret his youthful naivete. It’ll be interesting to see how he adjusts his views. I just hope he mellows, rather than trying to double down. Cheers.
I haven’t paid much attention to Schmid, but I wonder how his apologetic arguments stack up against his own former skeptical ones. It would be sad if he abandoned good arguments for bad ones.
My only prior exposure to him (which I discussed here) was because of a kerfuffle in which he and Alex O’Connor criticized Matt Dillahunty’s blanket statement that “claims are not evidence”. They can be evidence, so Schmid was right on that, at least.
vjtorley,
Hi VJ
I saw your post and TMZ and at one point agreed that the carbon dating was overwhelming against the Shroud being a miracle. Since that time new dating techniques have put the dating into question.
The major issue that needs to be resolved is the make up of the imaging. This is an area I have some expertise as I was involved in the development and service of the most high resolution semi conductor imaging equipment in the early 2000s. At that point given the measurements of the individual components of the image (assuming this data is real) I don’t see how this image was man made as it would have been very difficult to reproduce it even 20 years ago with millions of dollars of invested capital required.
The video you provided being 9 hours looks like a “Gish gallop” IMO. If it was easy to debunk this should be a lot simpler.
Add ‘Gish Gallop’ to your homework list. A 9-hour video is the opposite of a Gish Gallop, which is a rapidfire and superficial presentation of arguments in a debate where your opponent isn’t allowed time to respond fully. I haven’t watched the video, but if it’s 9 hours long, it sounds like it’s anything but superficial. Plus you can stop a video at any point to ponder it and formulate a response. Not a Gish Gallop.
By that logic, if the Shroud is authentic it should be a lot simpler to prove it. Your logic is bad; it works as well against your position as for it.
I’ll reiterate the point I made earlier. If God wants us to believe in miracles, why doesn’t he make the evidence clear-cut? If he wants us to believe that Jesus was miraculously resurrected, why do so via a burial shroud of dubious provenance when he could easily do so directly and far more convincingly?
keiths,
Hi Keiths
The alternative hypothesis is forgery. If it is a forgery that should be easy to prove and not take 9 hours of cherry picking to explain. The example of radio carbon dating was a strong piece of evidence supporting forgery until it was challenged with other dating methods. Even with carbon dating we were missing the explanation of how the image was formed. This image “pixels” have depth of between 200 and 600 nanometers.
As a guy working around semiconductor manufacturing and the equipment required to make wafers this should get your attention.
colewd:
I’ll add ‘cherry picking’ to your homework list (last updated in February):
To cherry-pick means to focus tendentiously on evidence that supports your desired conclusion while ignoring contrary evidence. You haven’t even watched the video, so you have no basis for dismissing it as cherry-picking.
I’ve noticed that when someone presents evidence that challenges one of your cherished beliefs, you look for excuses not to look at the evidence. For example, you’ve dismissed the WaPo database of over 30,000 Trump falsehoods as “propaganda” despite being unable to point to a single error in it. The thought of actually looking at the database scares you, because we all know that if you did, you’d find correct entry after correct entry, and you’d be forced to confront the fact that your Dear Leader is a sleazy and dishonest person who doesn’t respect you enough to tell you the truth. That scares you. Far less scary to lie to yourself and wave the database away as propaganda.
I think you’re doing something similar here. Instead of actually watching the video and evaluating the arguments therein, you’re looking for excuses not to. You called it a Gish gallop, and now you’re calling it cherry-picking. You’ve provided evidence of neither. You’re just looking for an excuse not to confront the arguments they present.
If they’re wrong, there’s nothing for you to be scared of. If they’re right, though, then the Shroud isn’t want you’re hoping it will be, and that is what scares you. Better to dismiss it the way you dismissed the WaPo database. Squeeze your eyes shut and cover your ears.
If it makes you feel any better, it appears that God (if he exists) couldn’t care less whether we believe the Shroud is authentic. If he did care, he’d provide us with convincing evidence, and there wouldn’t be centuries of debate over it. He can’t be bothered, it seems.
If God doesn’t care, why should we?
keiths,
The video is 8 or 9 hours. If someone is willing to watch it or show where the explanation for the image is I am willing to look at that segment and discuss it.
Keiths, the skeptics problem with arguing against the Shrouds authenticity is explaining the origin of the image. This is an area you should understand given your background in semiconductors and understanding how small a few hundred nanometers is along with the challenge of mechanically printing images that small let alone trying to make this image prior to high resolution imaging.
Revelation has occurred over time. God gave the prophecy to Abraham that his descendant’s would be enslaved in Egypt for 400 years. He did not perform the miracles to help them leave until they were there 400 years and well past Abrahams death. Jesus did not appear until thousands of years after Abraham. The Shroud is interesting as it has been revealed starting two thousand years after Jesus ressurection and over time through scientific discovery starting with the first photo in 1898 revealing the clarity of the image when photographed.
colewd:
I’m not going to watch it, for reasons already given, but the very first comment gives timestamps for all of the major topics they cover, including the image itself.
I’ll pay more attention once one of the “proofs” of authenticity stands up to critical scrutiny. In the meantime, life is too short for me to personally look into this. There are so many better uses of my time. I look on these claims in the same way I look on the perennial claims that yes, this time around someone really has found the remains of Noah’s Ark. Highly unlikely, and if someone actually does find conclusive evidence, it will make headlines. No need for me to look into it before then.
keiths:
colewd:
The Israelites were never enslaved en masse in Egypt, nor did they wander the desert for 40 years after escaping captivity. That story is a myth, but that’s a separate topic.
Which is a big problem for Christianity. Jesus comes sauntering in hundreds of thousands of years after the origin of our species. What was he doing for all that time? Why the holdup?
If the Shroud is authentic, why is God withholding the evidence? Is he afraid that more people might be convinced of Jesus’s resurrection and be saved? Is he worried about overcrowding in heaven?
As if on cue, a ‘research’ team is proving the point I made above:
It’s crap. The boat-shaped rock formation is already known to be of geologic origin, and the claims being made for the ground-penetrating radar are wildly implausible. That doesn’t stop Fox News, of course.
Dan McClellan has a nice takedown here.
Before going to the expense and effort of GPR, someone must have sampled and analysed the surface expression of the structure. What is it made of?
Oh, yeah — I recall you mentioning that you’re a geologist working in oil exploration, right?
Here’s a 1996 paper by a geology professor at Cal State Northridge:
BOGUS “NOAH’S ARK” FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE