<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"><updated>2012-09-18T18:09:24Z</updated><id>tag:sursumcorda.salemsattic.com,2018:/isso/thread/post/miracles</id><title>Comments for sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/miracles</title><entry><id>tag:sursumcorda.salemsattic.com,2018:/isso/1027/3768</id><title>Comment #3768</title><updated>2012-09-18T18:09:24Z</updated><author><name>SursumCorda</name></author><link href="https://sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/miracles#isso-3768" /><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Another question Stafford deals with is that of why reports of miracles are so much more common in some situations than others.  In Pentecostal churches, for example, as opposed to Presbyterian.  Or in Africa more than in Europe.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As you might expect, he finds several factors, but the most important boils down to the fact that miracles are expected more in some situations than in others.  In some cultures, whether social or ecclesiastical, reports of miracles are met with much enthusiasm and little skepticism.  In these, there is certain to be significant over-reporting.  But there are false negatives as well as false positives in this world:  in churches where miracles are &amp;quot;known&amp;quot; to have stopped centuries ago, and in societies where the prevailing thought is that they never happened, ever, a &lt;em&gt;bona fide&lt;/em&gt; miracle is likely to be explained away, kept quiet, or never noticed in the first place.  A mushroom enthusiast going into the woods looking for breakfast will find fungi the casual hiker will never even see.&lt;/p&gt;</content></entry></feed>