HOW SCIENTIFIC TESTING EXCLUDES SUPERNATURAL INTERVENTION
ESSENTIALS:
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.
SCIENCE V MIRACLE IDEOLOGY
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.
Science is minimalist if you can use it to verify that Jesus was alive...
Many hold this view, "Nature works in a regular way. The sun does
not speak to us. Goats do not give birth to kittens. Men do not rise
from the dead. So any evidence that one of these things happened is
trumped by the evidence that it has not happened and is an illusion,
an error or a lie.”
Religious people will combat it with, “We argue that the general law
can be true even if one of those things happened as long as the
evidence is strong that it took place."
Fact remains that Jesus then would need to be video recorded when he
was rising. And he would need to be tested by doctors before we
could declare that he rose from the dead. You need really good clear
evidence. The problem sceptics find is that the evidence is never
good enough.
Science would have this problem. "Okay the evidence Jesus rose is
solid. But he only presented himself briefly on different occasions.
So was he remaining alive when he was not around? Was he really
fully alive? He wore a robe and we only saw the head and the hands.
Partial resurrections are quite common in religious lore. What if he
was little more than a talking head?" If you watch horror films,
they describe a possible world. We could have a world where heads
talk when the bodies are dead. We just happen not to. The point is,
you can only get to a partial resurrection! Anything else is wishful
thinking. Anything else is not science.
Finally
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.