The only reason to believe in the supernatural is if say somebody is dead for days and is now alive. Or so it seems.

You only find that a person who has died is now to all accounts alive.  That is all.  You have not the slightest right to favour the view, "God raised him" over say, "Maybe the death was a miracle suspended animation and not a death?"  It is anti-evidence to pick a side.  If there is evidence for miracles there is no evidence to exactly what the miracle was for you only see the aftermath.

Traditionally miracles are seen as anti-truth and anti-science full stop but here we are saying that even if they do happen a new attack on evidence happens.  People respond by trying to exploit them.


The word supernatural does not really mean anything.  The best you can do is claim that it may demonstrate itself when say a virginal child gives birth without a human father being involved.

If you assert that science does not rule out the supernatural but just gives its attention to the natural then fine. If the supernatural just sits there and works in its own sphere then there is no problem. But what if it tampers in ours? What if something like paranormal or divine intervention really happens?

The only reason to believe in the supernatural at all is if there are events that involve something nature cannot do. So it makes no sense to say. "I believe in the supernatural but it never acts in any noticeable way."  So for that reason do not trust people who say they affirm science and believe in a passive, as far as this world is concerned, supernatural.

The intervention is the problem.

It may happen but without being detectable.

It is foolish to say it is only a problem if we find it. In fact not finding it would be the worst thing for science you can imagine for it means that science is only opinion and thus without value or authority.

If a supernatural interference happens, say a person's dog comes back to life, you don't know and can only guess where or how the miracle/magic went in and what it was and what it actually did. For example, the dog could easily be a miracle duplicate of the dead dog. Or you may have hallucinated the death by a miracle. Or the dog was put into suspended animation by a miracle so that it seemed dead. Maybe a miracle prevented you from feeling its pulse. The possibilities are infinite.

Suppose science identified it. Then all it can say is that it happened not that it came from a reliable or trustworthy being. Or a being who is going to intervene without being noticed and who is going to do it for some mysterious good purpose that justifies it. Science would be preaching religion if it said anything more than it just happened. It would be failing to let evidence talk to it not assumptions and feelings and guesses and ideas that some higher power is sending mysterious messages.

Religion likes to tell us that science can never say, "Miracles do not happen". It claims that there is a science based ideology that does say that and calls it Scientism and denies that it is real science. It thinks it is something that makes the science sounds but is not science. It gives us no clear guidelines about how much science is infiltrated by those Scientism bigots. If Scientism is a bogey-man then religion's lies only serve to make people distrust all science and wonder about all scientists.

Do not be fooled.  If science does its thing and religion does its thing then what right has it to tell science what it thinks?  Why are statements from top scientists not mentioned?  All you get is some pope or Bible text or whatever telling us that miracle claims do not hinder science.

But suppose science says of miracles.  Then what does it mean? Does it mean, "Evidence or not, there are no miracles"? or does it mean, "There is no evidence that miracles happen but there could be true miracles we don't know of. So until more light comes we declare that we must treat miracles as fiction."

The last statement is exactly what science says. There is nothing wrong with that if it has looked at the evidence and found none. Religion of course never mentions this. It seeks to give the false impression that miracles have been found to be compatible with science and that science does not believe in miracles for it does not care about the evidence.

In fact when science says miracles do not happen it takes it for granted that we know that this is only provisional and could change if evidence arises tomorrow.

If science does not say that miracles don't happen, then why is nobody in the religious camp saying it is okay if it says, "Miracles don't happen but tomorrow might be different?" Because it knows science cannot say that as it would mean saying it is possible antibiotics might just stop working tomorrow and thus it would be saying science is useless. Science rejects that its research might be by a stroke of a miracle pen be only valid until midnight. Religion would be overthrowing science by asking for that. It does not care if that happens but it does not want to make it too obvious.

As science endorses a healthy attitude of doubt to the point where it describes proven facts as theories, it will doubt miracle claims more than anything else. Science is actually based on the "theory" that miracles do not happen. Its unspoken methodology is that all things are to be doubted and the supernatural is to be doubted most. It may be at the back of its mind but it is there.
Religion says that science can never say, "Miracles can never happen as that would be it claiming that it has disproved the existence of God. Science denying miracles happen is the same as denying the existence of God." But both reason that if miracles may not happen, God can still exist. God doesn't have to do miracles. So that is a bare-faced lie. Why are they trying to make miracles matter more even than God?!

Moderate (I hate that term) Christians say that science should say that a miracle claim must be critically examined as thoroughly as humanly possible before it may be decided that it is possible that something people might surmise is a miracle has taken place.
But science is being definite here that it is something it cannot explain and that does not mean it includes miracle in that assessment.
It is possible to say that evidence says a man died and evidence says he was alive again but that is not the same as suggesting it was possibly a miracle.  It is definitely not saying it clearly was a miracle.
The idea is that science meets religion but there is no meeting intended.

The believers say that miracles are not cases of God showing he has power over nature and is stronger than it. But they are about God helping us through them to understand what kind of God he is so that we might learn from him and be better people and more conformed to his character. They see miracles not as intervention but as interaction. God must be bad at interacting then for he doesn't do that many miracles!  Plus why argue over semantics for if somebody is now alive when they died last year that is an intervention to us even if it is not from God's perspective.
Christianity is not based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ but on the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If science could say that Jesus was somehow alive after dying on the cross it still cannot affirm the religious understanding.
Even if Jesus was alive after his crucifixion, the theologian cannot prove that this was a miracle and if he can prove that, the next burden is to try and prove that God did it. This of course is impossible. Science like everything else such as theology or metaphysics is unable to explain how God who is spirit can interact with matter. Spirit is not matter. It is not matter with parts. It is not matter without parts. It is really nothing - like the Emperor’s New Clothes but the believers can’t see that.

Also science has no hope of explaining it.  Even the disciplines that are about God and his world cannot do it even though you would expect they might be able to.  This too shows how far science is away from those things.
Robert Ingersoll wrote: "Science has nothing in common with religion. Facts and miracles never did, and never will agree." Christians call that statement dogmatic and answer "There are more things in Heaven and on earth". So let us try, ""Science has nothing in common with religion. Facts and faith in miracles never did, and never will agree." That stresses that it is more important to condemn belief in miracles than miracles. And it is. Faith in something cannot turn it into a fact if it is not a fact. Faith gets in the way of seeing the facts. If science cannot account for what seems to be a miracle it will call it unexplained not a miracle. Miracles are about faith not science. Even if science could prove a miracle it cannot comment on what is doing it or what did it. That bit is for faith.  And even that is not legitimate.
The best theories in science are the best because of the good evidence they are supported by. There are theories that are not as good. God is one of the worst theories for the concept is put beyond the reach of any scientific, moral, spiritual and religious test. For every spiritual person who experiences God's loving presence there is another who experiences the non-existence of God like a Buddhist would.
Science does not have a theory of God. Therefore it regards God as disproven.

The notion that science has no way of touching on God is untrue. It has. It has shown that God is a false hypothesis.
Science ignores possibilities and cares only about facts and probabilities. It rejects the notion that there was any intelligence such as God guiding evolution for it says evolution did not need guidance. Evolution looks and acts unintended - period. The notion of guided evolution is not science.  Religion can call God a liar for faking the lack of purpose.  God might respond that he does not want our faith.
Religion teaches that God is activity. So his being able to exist without the universe would not mean that he is not part of it. Religion explains that he is both not part of it and he is. He is part of it by acting on it and in it. And he does not need the universe.  He is self-sufficient.  Yet we cannot see his alleged action.  He is clearly put by religion out outside of nature.  That is really about trying to put God outside the expertise of scientific investigation. They suspect or know God does not exist and want to protect their delusion.

Theologians who lie to promote God and who say God is right to let terrible things happen to babies are guilty of a terrible wrong. They are using dishonesty to make God seem plausible. If the problem of evil is solvable, it is not solvable if you have to resort to such tactics. Even a believer would have to see that you are deliberately condoning evil. There is malice in your heart.

Science will always matter more than religion or anything else because it checks its data and self-corrects where necessary and that is what it is all about. Science then in principle is superior to any human ideas about God.  Checking that seeds grow into plants because it is tested will always be superior to anything that cannot be checked that way.  Religion will say you cannot check love and it would be evil to try?  Really?  Surely what is best for us means affirming caution and implementing truth?  Real love loves evidence for evidence alone should be our teacher.

Lourdes etc
Free Books