I googled ‘reward’ and ‘miracles’ and ‘skeptics’ and noted the following. But somewhere there’s quite a large reward offered by a skeptics’ society (in Britain) for scientific proof one one miracle. Anyone know anything about that? Original headline: Priest offers $5000 to disprove miracles of Lourdes

A Sydney Catholic priest has challenged sceptics of religious miracles, posting a $5000 bounty for anyone who can prove the Lourdes miracles he has investigated are fakes.

Medical science might explain some cures attributed to the shrine in southern France but not every instance of miraculous healing, says Paul Glynn, a Marist Brother.

Father Glynn and his cousin Bill Dougherty, a former regional newspaper proprietor, have offered the $5000 reward from their own pockets.

Millions of pilgrims have flocked to Lourdes since 1858, when a French peasant girl, Bernadette Soubirous, said she had been visited by an apparition of the Virgin Mary.

The Catholic Church has since recognised 66 miracles at the site, the most recent in 1987. A medical tribunal set up to investigate claims of miracles describes about 6800 cases as medically inexplicable, Father Glynn said. He said the cases had not met the condition of a declared miracle.

Father Glynn, based in Hunters Hill, has interviewed four people and reviewed the case notes of a further 20. He is convinced of their authenticity.

“It can take 12 to 20 years before miracles are even accepted,” he said. “There must be a proven physical disease where pre-existing medical conditions have been documented, the cure must be instantaneous … and it must be complete and permanent.

“They must be prepared to be examined by a medical tribunal and return to Lourdes to be re-examined for several years after.”

Father Glynn announced the reward to parishioners of St Kevin’s Church, Dee Why, yesterday in an attempt to convince non-believers of the power of faith.

To win, a recognised professor of medicine must review the case medical notes and be prepared to verify and identify an explicable reason for cure and long-term recovery.

Australian Skeptics acknowledged the Lourdes medical tribunal was painstaking in its investigations of alleged miracle cures. But the number of cures accepted as miraculous by the Catholic Church compared to the number of visits was hardly indicative of a statistical link between Lourdes and cures, it said.

It also pointed out that Bernadette herself was not cured, and died of tuberculosis.

Barry Williams, executive officer of the NSW chapter of Australian Skeptics, is one who will not be taking up the challenge.

“It’s like trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible. I suspect many of those so-called cures are no longer alive and $5000 wouldn’t come near to covering the costs of an inquiry.”

Some of the claims, he said, were “self-delusion”, some the result of physiological healing.

.:Story originally published by:. Sydney Morning Herald / Australia | Linda Morris – Aug 30.04 The Skeptics’ Bogus Bounty by Wayne Jackson Christian Courier: Penpoints Monday, May 24, 1999

A response to a challenge from a dishonest infidel. The skeptics have placed a “bounty” on my head. Well, in a manner of speaking. They’ve offered me a bounty of $2,000 if I will accept their challenge. But let me give you a bit of background.

Some years ago a former preacher and missionary associated with the churches of Christ “soured,” and, so far as anyone knows, abandoned any remnant of faith – he identified with agnosticism.

For some reason – and the psychology of this would be interesting to probe – the man developed an almost lunatic-like anger towards Christianity. Perhaps his self-described “futile effort” in the mission field was more than he could bear and so, responsibility had to be deposited somewhere!

Apparently, he chose the Bible instead of focusing upon his personal inadequacies. He started a small paper through which to vent his rage, and, over the years, his obsession with opposing Jesus Christ has intensified. Unlike skeptics with greater integrity, he even disputes that the Lord ever existed!

In order to satiate his lust for attention, he frequently challenges for debates, resorting to the most unscrupulous tactics in his efforts to lure opponents.

For example, some years ago this apostate sent invitations to a number of ministers, offering to debate with them. The thing about that situation, though, was this: he invented phony names of various denominational affiliations by which to introduce himself.

Cranking out these little epistles on computer-generated letterheads, he falsely presented himself as different clergymen, proposing debates on a number of issues. If anyone responded positively, he flung off the mask of pseudonymity, gleefully revealed his true identity, and challenged for a discussion on his own terms. If the victim of his hoax was disgusted at the ploy and refused further dialog, he was charged with being anxious to debate a sectarian, but too cowardly to encounter an infidel. Somehow this refreshed the gentleman’s twisted psyche.

Eventually a few did engage him in debate; most, however, later regretted it. Not because he was a formidable foe, but because he repeatedly proved himself to be void of any semblance of honor.

I said all of that to say this. This modern “Judas” has posted the “Two-Thousand-Dollar Opportunity” on his web site, offering (in collusion with another skeptic) a reward to this writer (or others) if any “can take all accounts of the resurrection [of Christ] in the four gospels [sic], Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15, and write a single narrative in which he includes every event and detail mentioned in the separate accounts and do so without omitting anything or injecting inconsistency, contradiction, or purely speculative materials into the narrative.”

What a facade! Reflect upon a couple of matters.

First, where is the $2,000? Has it been deposited in a bank somewhere, just in case someone responds? Why not make it $2 million? If the skeptics are so confident of their case, surely they could “up the ante.” After all, it doesn’t cost any more not to pay $2 million than $2,000! The fact is, these people have no intention of paying anything – ever! Who wants to waste time complying with this spurious offer?

Second, who would be the judge as to whether the criteria have been met or not? Does anyone, who has a nodding acquaintance with reality, believe for one minute that this dishonest crew is going to concede that the requirement of their offer has been satisfied?

Third, skeptics have consistently demonstrated they haven’t a clue as to what constitutes a genuine discrepancy. They perceive of every difference in detail, supplementation, etc., as a contradiction. It scarcely needs to be noted that such is not the case. Several records of the same event may differ in a variety of descriptives without there being “contradiction.” But these critics know little of the methods of literary analysis.

This “reward” fiasco, therefore, warrants only a fleeting notice. It is but a ploy for attention. We give them a little, but not much! In fact, so far as the subject of this review is concerned, the greatest indignity of all will be the fact that his name was not mentioned.

~~~