prasad1
Active member
Science rejects miracles for exactly the same reasons that accountants do when conducting audits, the police do when conducting forensics, and mechanics do when troubleshooting cars.
The idea that we always seek natural explanations for phenomena is called methodological naturalism. It must be sharply distinguished from philosophical naturalism, which is the a priori assumption that only natural phenomena exist. It is perfectly possible to be a religious believer and still practice methodological naturalism.
We can draw two important conclusions about accepting miracles as explanations.
One possible explanation for any account of an extraordinary event is always that the event actually happened. Improbabilities can furnish us with good reason to doubt the event, but can never disprove it. We are, however, perfectly justified in demanding that the person claiming the event supply better evidence.
Since earliest times, people had regarded lightning as supernatural. Benjamin Franklin showed that lightning was electricity and furthermore devised a way to control it. For the first time, a phenomenon went from supernatural not just to natural, but to something controllable by humans.
Apart from alleged miracles that could also reasonably be interpreted as natural events, there are less innocent cases: attention seekers, people who want to advance their own splinter doctrines or attract a following, and finally outright fakes. Some of the hoaxes are pious frauds, some are cynical attempts to fleece the gullible, and yet others are designed to discredit belief in miracles.
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyNoMiracles.HTM
This article is not against any guruji or Godmen.
The idea that we always seek natural explanations for phenomena is called methodological naturalism. It must be sharply distinguished from philosophical naturalism, which is the a priori assumption that only natural phenomena exist. It is perfectly possible to be a religious believer and still practice methodological naturalism.
We can draw two important conclusions about accepting miracles as explanations.
- All theologies that accept miracles admit they are exceptional events. That's what "miracle" means. So if there's a possible natural explanation of an phenomenon, we go with the natural explanation.
- If you stand to gain from explaining something away as a miracle, you don't get to play.
- If you're from Enron, you don't get to claim your documents disappeared miraculously. It only happened if the FBI and the SEC said it did.
- If you're a defendant, you don't get to claim your fingerprints miraculously appeared at a crime scene. Only the DA is allowed to say that.
- If you're a bookkeeper, you don't get to say money miraculously disappeared from your company. If the auditors conclude that's what happened, all right, but not you.
- If your religion needs to postulate a miracle to keep some doctrine from going south, guess what? You don't get to do that. Only someone with nothing to gain from claiming a miracle can say that.
One possible explanation for any account of an extraordinary event is always that the event actually happened. Improbabilities can furnish us with good reason to doubt the event, but can never disprove it. We are, however, perfectly justified in demanding that the person claiming the event supply better evidence.
Since earliest times, people had regarded lightning as supernatural. Benjamin Franklin showed that lightning was electricity and furthermore devised a way to control it. For the first time, a phenomenon went from supernatural not just to natural, but to something controllable by humans.
Apart from alleged miracles that could also reasonably be interpreted as natural events, there are less innocent cases: attention seekers, people who want to advance their own splinter doctrines or attract a following, and finally outright fakes. Some of the hoaxes are pious frauds, some are cynical attempts to fleece the gullible, and yet others are designed to discredit belief in miracles.
[*=left]A second principal reason science rejects miracles, therefore, is that writing something off as a miracle forecloses any possibility of explaining it in other terms.
[*=left]Even if, through some unknown means, we establish that an event is genuinely miraculous, we are left with an isolated anomaly that tells us nothing. Just because a miracle is reported by a member of some sect doesn't mean the event supports that sect's interpretations.
[*=left]The fact something is possible doesn't mean we have to regard it as likely. I may get hit by a meteorite, but I don't spend time dwelling on it. A miracle may influence the course of a disease, but most religious believers will still go to the doctor. (The ones who have the courage of their convictions and reject all medical intervention usually die.)
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyNoMiracles.HTM
This article is not against any guruji or Godmen.
Last edited:
