How can science "explain" miracles?

[Tielec]

That's just it. Cognitive biases affect what an individual even accepts as evidence, and what is rejected. This has less to do with the source or type of evidence, and more to do with subconsciously confirming and preserving firmly held beliefs, or, worldviews. Cognitive dissonance must be resolved, and the brain reinforces efficiency over logic.

Kind of. That's why we try to establish criteria about what is acceptable and unacceptable evidence before we go on fishing expeditions. Had you been born in ancient greece years ago you would have been one of the first to stumble onto a basic tenet of the scientific method.

To the OP; I have to confess I don't think miracles (ie., a temporary suspension of the natural order for somebody's benefit) will ever be a more reasonable explanation for a phenomena than science and some brute statistics. If miracles DO happen then by their nature we can't ever really know it, therefore I choose to behave as if they don't happen.

 

[cupid dave]

Kind of. That's why we try to establish criteria about what is acceptable and unacceptable evidence before we go on fishing expeditions. Had you been born in ancient greece years ago you would have been one of the first to stumble onto a basic tenet of the scientific method.

To the OP; I have to confess I don't think miracles (ie., a temporary suspension of the natural order for somebody's benefit) will ever be a more reasonable explanation for a phenomena than science and some brute statistics. If miracles DO happen then by their nature we can't ever really know it, therefore I choose to behave as if they don't happen.

don't you agree that when positive results occur in situations where we can not find a rational reason to explain this event we must call it amiracle until such time as it can be explained?


assume that jesus used mass hypnosis to convince people at a wedding that he had miraculously changed water into the finest wine.

since hypnosis remained an unknown phenomenon until Dr Mesmer rediscovered the art, what else could those ancient peopes have said???

 

[Huram Abi]

God of the Gaps, again?

 

[AV1611VET]

God of the Gaps, again?

We call god-of-the-gaps, "macroevolution."

 

[Huram Abi]

I don't think you know what God of the Gaps is.

 

[ranunculus]

don't you agree that when positive results occur in situations where we can not find a rational reason to explain this event we must call it amiracle until such time as it can be explained?

No,
You'll inescapably draw wrong conclusions.
Because claiming an event is a miracle is an attempt at an explanation. And if you already think the answer is divine intervention why follow up with investigation? Saying something is a miracle stops investigation. It doesn't contribute to a greater understanding. It's god of the gaps, an argument from ignorance.
Rather, why not say 'I don't know'?

assume that jesus used mass hypnosis to convince people at a wedding that he had miraculously changed water into the finest wine.

since hypnosis remained an unknown phenomenon until Dr Mesmer rediscovered the art, what else could those ancient peopes have said???

If that's the case they'd be wrong in calling it a miracle.

 

[Greg1234]

Saying something is a miracle stops investigation.

You do know that saying something is DNA stops geology, right?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

We call god-of-the-gaps, "macroevolution."

Is a crocoduck macroevolution?

 

[ranunculus]

You do know that saying something is DNA stops geology, right?

non sequitur aside....
If you define a miracle as supernatural, a violation of the laws of nature, then it's something outside the realm of science. You are saying by definition it cannot be investigated.

 

[ranunculus]

Miracles are by definition things that happen super-naturally, above nature. Science depends on the regularity of natural laws, but miracles negate such regularity. Thus, methodologically speaking, miracles are outside the realm of science.

The Problem of Miracles | Tolle Lege

What's different, however, in the scientific view of this, is the acknowledgment, by scientists such as myself, even scientists who are people of faith, that if supernatural causes are there and are active, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret. Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible. But saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work by natural tools and mechanisms, that's simply incorrect. So, by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Defining Science text | PBS

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think you know what God of the Gaps is.

Neither do you, or you wouldn't call it "gaps", would you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is a crocoduck macroevolution?

Macroevolution is a figment of Dagon's imagination.

 

[Huram Abi]

Neither do you, or you wouldn't call it "gaps", would you?

Yes, I would, obviously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I would, obviously.

Fair enough -- mind if I do the same?

Macroevolution is nothing more than god-of-the-gaps cosmology.

 

[Huram Abi]

Go ahead. You just look foolish, however.

 

[crazygardenlady]

I think science just hasn't caught up to God yet. I mean, 400 hundred years ago a microwave would seem like a miracle. Or a piece of junk since you can't plug it in! But I truly believe that science and God are compatible, but science just hasn't been willing to take that step. You know that a scientist would look at a miracle and try to actively disprove it - until that attitude changes, science can't advance in that direction.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think science just hasn't caught up to God yet.

It never will, for two main reasons:

1. Science is myopic.
2. God is not science.

 

[crazygardenlady]

It never will, for two main reasons:

1. Science is myopic.
2. God is not science.

Science can change though - you do not know what science will be like in 500 years from now. I'm sure our life times will never see science and religion hold hands, but perhaps one day. Science is the study of our universe and the things in it - all of which have been created by God. God created gravity. God created everything. Science just studies and strives to understand what God created so that we may use our knowledge to better find a balance with our world and advance ourselves. God is science, there just isn't any proof yet. Give it a couple hundred years, I'm not ready to be so pessimistic yet.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You know that a scientist would look at a miracle and try to actively disprove it - until that attitude changes, science can't advance in that direction.

That is precisely a direction you wouldn't want science to advance in.

It's kind of how science has to work.

If you present me with data that simply doesn't make sense I, as a scientist, have two choices:

1. Find out what went wrong
2. Go back to square one and figure that there's something going on here that is either undiscovered or that I don't understand.

The very second I say "It's a miracle!" that's the point at which I am no longer doing science.

Decreeing something a miracle is called "giving up" in science. It means you haven't explored the topic enough.

Why did this person not die from the black death? Well it's either a miracle or they had an adaptation that allowed them to survive. One answer leads absolutely NOWHERE, the other leads to better understanding of how to deal with disease.

 

[thaumaturgy]

God is science, there just isn't any proof yet.

While I think your attitude toward science is positive (which is a rarity when discussing it vs religion), I feel that this statement sums up religion and religion only.

How does one know if God is science or not when there's no evidence for the claim? It's pure faith.

Which is fine. But it is religion.

Give it a couple hundred years, I'm not ready to be so pessimistic yet.

The way religion and Science could converge to that level would be to find evidence for God. Not just some guesses or hand-waving about the unexplained. But actual evidence of a single concept of God that all observers (or at least the majority of observers) will agree upon and a model for how this being will "function" (ie if there is a given stimulus how will "God" likely react? What are God's limitations to differentiate God from "everything else"? etc. etc.)

Take Gravity. We currently have very limited understanding of the true essence of gravity (is it a fundamental force mediated by a carrier virtual particle like the graviton? Is it warping of space-time? ) but we know an awful lot about how it works.

We use it to do masses of things. We can predict to greatly precise degrees how to get a car-sized object from earth to a specific point on Mars millions of miles away using gravitational forces and calculations.

It is interesting that science has found so many things which are almost impossible to find (take the neutrino as an example) yet we cannot find anything that points to coherent evidence for "God" despite it being man's primary obsession since we learned to speak millenia ago.