Miracles in the Light of Science

"In the affairs of life it is impossible for us to count on miracles or to take them into consideration at all in our use of reason" - Kant 

A miracle is an event that is not naturally possible. That does not mean it is necessarily impossible. There could be a power greater than nature such as a god that can do it.  Science needs the rule "There is no such thing as a physical impossibility" to be able to function. But religion by contrast says that there is no such thing as a physical impossibility if there is a God.  A miracle is supernatural. It is really magic and superstition under a different name. If a power can instantly remove an incurable terminal disease, then it can guarantee bad luck for those who walk under ladders. Magic and superstition and fortune-telling assume that like produces like. In other words, symbols of death in a tea cup mean that death will happen. In prayer, the belief that you invite a God of love into your heart will make you more loving. Again it is like produces like.
 
Science is about searching for natural causes only. That does not mean it simply does not comment on the supernatural.  It presumes that everything is natural and rules out the supernatural on principle.  If you think nature can be tampered with by a power greater than then it follows that science can prove nothing for you don't know what this power has been doing.  A method that keeps searching for the natural, if supposedly there really is a miracle there, is obviously denying it.  Actions speak louder than words.  Religion takes advantage of how science won't say it outright.  But that silence does not even matter.  It is only a verbal silence.  The silence says it all.  Religion is trying to take advantage of the lay person who is unfamiliar with science.

It is vital for science to be able to test something.  If an effect is reported is made science tries to make it happen again.

Science understands and learns from how events repeat themselves.

Miracles do not repeat themselves.  For example, randoms going to a holy well get cured but not all. 

As miracles are not repeating themselves it is held that miracles need not be eliminated from scientific explanation.

But if that is so it can also be held that they can be just ignored.  They are not important.  Needing no elimination does not amount to needing one.  It makes it optional.

Also, miracles will be eliminated for science talks about singularities, unrepeatable miracle like events which are nevertheless natural.  It does not talk about miracles.

Some believers say that something always repeating itself in experiments shows that there is complex information involved that only an intelligent spirit or God could devise and convey.  That is the design argument and is against the scientific principle that evidence not how something looks must have the say.

Some say that a singularity is the reason why we have life on earth.  A singularity is a once off.  A singularity is assumed to have started life on earth.  But that is an odd assumption.  A singularity could have made circumstances that accidentally produced life.  There is still no basis in science for saying an intelligent supernatural or non-natural force give rise to the first life.

Science is a method not a set of doctrines and beliefs. The method might result in doctrines and beliefs but these are not what science is about. The method is about testing and if theories about how things work are wrong or doubtful, science will test to work out if they can be revised. If not then they will be dropped. By default, what is about testing and checking and revising could mislead or be wrong. But it is still more worthy of trust and of being regarded as alone being of supreme importance than religion and dogma and other things that refuse to update and revise and change.
 
Science has to assume that miraculous and magical things cannot happen in order to function. The miracle believers and their alleged miracles oppose science and so are to be seen as superstition.
 
Scientists are often accused by religionists of claiming that science is the only way to truth. Science holds that truth is just there and it hopes to discover it. It does not say it has the resource to discover everything. Science merely says its discoveries are the best verified truths not that they the only truths. Science then is superior to religion.
 
It is only miracle believers who make that false accusation against science. They refuse to admit that scientists hold that science in principle is the only way to certainty about some truth. It does not follow that scientists think that the only truth is truth that will be scientifically verified.
 
Christians may say there is no conflict between religion and science. Surely they know that there are forms of Christianity that differ hugely from one another and are we to think that there is no conflict between any of these and science? The following has to be shouted for it is so important. CHRISTIANS SAY THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY. THEY SAY THEY FIT TOGETHER AND COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER. BUT IT IS NOT UP TO CHRISTIANS TO SAY THAT BUT SCIENTISTS WHO ARE CHRISTIANS. THAT YOU HAVE POPES AND THEOLOGIANS SAYING IT PROVES THAT THEY ARE ARROGANT AND UNTRUTHFUL. ALSO CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON BELIEF IN MIRACLES OR THE SUPERNATURAL. BUT SCIENCE IS ABOUT EXPERIENCING WHAT SEEMS TO BE TRUE THROUGH TESTS. SCIENCE ASSUMES MIRACLES DO NOT HAPPEN FOR A MIRACLE IS NECESSARILY CONTRARY TO EXPERIENCE. OUR EXPERIENCE IS THAT DEAD PEOPLE STAY DEAD AND DO NOT RISE AGAIN. SO SCIENCE HAS TO ASSUME THAT NATURE WILL WORK IN A REGULAR WAY AND WILL NOT EXPERIENCE ANY SUPERNATURAL SUSPENSION OR INTERRUPTION. WHEN A MIRACLE CLAIM IS MADE CAN YOU BE NEUTRAL AS YOU CHECK THE EVIDENCE FOR IT? NO. AND IF YOU TRY TO BE, YOU WILL BE FORCED TO BE NEUTRAL IF THE POPE SAYS THAT CHEMOTHERAPY WILL MIRACULOUSLY STOP WORKING. IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN? THE TRULY GOOD PERSON DOES NOT BELIEVE IN MIRACLES. THE TRULY GOOD PERSON IS GROUNDED IN SCIENCE.

For science, miracles even if possible are no use in practice or investigation.  Just like for Kant, they are of no importance to life.  Reason does not need them or have any use for them.