Science vs. Belief in Miracles

Einstein said that the only thing incomprehensible about the Universe is that it is comprehensible.  That pretty much summarizes the awe experienced by scientists as they seek to discover the unchanging laws of the Universe.  Science seeks to find observable patterns.  Once a predictable pattern is seen, the possibility of an inductive inference or generalization arises.  Such a generalization anticipates predictability of this pattern.  Science seeks to build a coherent world-view based on predictable patterns.  What is important to science is that, new concepts, to be admissible to its world-view, improve its ability to explain observed phenomenon, its predictive ability.

When events are not repeatable, such as historical events, science is not interested because they are not verifiable as repeatable events are and do not add to the predictive power of the scientific world-view.  The only evidence for historical accounts is second hand evidence.  

When historical events are not in agreement with the scientific world-view, such events are categorized as miracles or super-natural events.  Miracles are violations of laws of nature.  A scientist cannot accept a miracle for such an acceptance is tantamount to admission of violation of inviolable laws of nature.

Science rejects miracles for exactly the same reasons that accountants do when conducting audits, the police do when conducting forensics, and mechanics do when trouble-shooting cars.  For laws to be violated, one needs more than circumstantial evidence.  

We observe two things when presented with miracles.

1. All theologies that accept miracles admit that miracles are exceptional events. That's what "miracle" means. They have no natural explanations.  They are in violation of known natural laws - violations of the scientific world-view.  If there's a possible natural explanation of a phenomenon, we choose the natural explanation because it agrees with time-tested.  Miracles have no such explanations.
2. If you stand to gain from claiming something to be a miracle, you don't get to play.  If your religion needs to postulate a miracle to keep some doctrine believable, guess what? You don't get to do that. Only someone with nothing to gain from claiming a miracle can say that.
   
   Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism. claimed to have been given gold plates by an angel, which he translated to become the Book of Mormon. The interesting thing here is that, apart from Mormons, most devout believers in miracles reject this account. And they do so for precisely the same reasons that most skeptics reject miracles in general. 

So it's not skepticism per se that annoys believers in miracles. It's skepticism directed against their miracle claims.

Abrahamic religions are history-centric religions in that their core beliefs are tied to the truthfulness of some particular historical miracles.  Christian apologists are unfazed and say that beliefs underpin all forms of our knowing.  They say that even science cannot escape beliefs.  After all, is it not a belief that the patterns we recognize, codify, and predict in science will continue to persist in future?  If science can accept beliefs, why do scientists have an issue with Judeo-Christian beliefs?

Proper response from scientists should be that not all beliefs are the same.

Science too makes assumptions or holds metaphysical beliefs.  The inductive inference that patterns continue to repeat in future is such a belief.  That laws continue to hold is such a belief.  That is what Einstein was amazed  about when he said that the only thing incomprehensible about the Universe is that it is comprehensible.  

However, beliefs in science are limited in one important sense.  Beliefs in science are confirmed by extensive experience.  The belief is in generalizing an experienced phenomenon.  They are warranted beliefs.  While we cannot prove that Sun will rise in the East Tomorrow, there is a good deal of collective human experience to say that the belief that Sun will rise in the East has a very strong inductive basis.  The belief that Sun will rise in the East Tomorrow is a warranted belief.

Religious miracles involving God and His connections and communications to human prophets is a belief that is at the same level of trustworthiness as the belief that Sun will not rise in the East Tomorrow.  There is no human experience or knowledge to support it.  The extraordinary nature of the beliefs should leave one to suspect any limited human experience offered in their support.

Christian apologist will not quit easily.  He says, "Huh, I told you!  You cannot prove anything in Science.  Therefore, science is a belief too."

There is a response for them:  One has to make a distinction between proof and warranted belief.  Of course, we cannot prove that there are no Unicorns in Ecuador.  But we all know that there are no Unicorns in Ecuador, at least not naturally occurring Unicorns.  We should not be naive to believe that we can know things only if we prove them.  In science, we cannot prove anything but we make progress in science everyday.  Why? Because we have warranted beliefs - justifiable claims which are backed up with evidence.  The assumption that the speed of light is constant cannot be experimentally verified. Is it just a belief then?  Not quite.  Theories built on this assumption have made predictions which can be experimentally verified.  In other words, the assumption itself cannot be validated but theories built on it can and do make successful predictions.  Belief that there are Unicorns in Ecuador offers no such comfort.  The belief that prophets received special communication from God fares no better than Unicorns in Ecuador.  All claims should be tested and judged the same way, religious or non-religious.

Science finds unwarranted beliefs objectionable.  Thus, claims of resurrection of Jesus are not acceptable to science.  Even more so unacceptable is the leap from resurrection (even if granted to be true) to the conclusion that Jesus must be the Son of God.

When someone claims an extraordinary human experience that cannot be tested, are we not justified in being suspicious?  Life would be impossible if we are not suspicious.  It is wrong to say that I cannot disprove that Jesus is not son of God, therefore I cannot deny the the miracle of Jesus being a Son of God.  Nonsense.  My belief that Jesus is not a son of God is rooted in experience and justifiable the same way the belief that Sun will rise in the East Tomorrow.  Besides, the burden of proof is on the person making the factual claim.  Until justification is offered, the claim is just that - a claim.  If the claim is far from human experience, I am even more justified in rejecting the claim as an absurdity.  A wishy-washy justification based on unverifiable historical events do not constitute justification for the claim.  Historical claims offer a nice cover for absurd claims of mystery.

American founding fathers were notable in their thinking along these lines.  Here is what John Adams wrote in his Diary on February 13, 1756: Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, "that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes," and that "these things are very misterious."  Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.

Christian apologists twist the inability of atheists to disprove God's communication with his chosen prophets and  often say that athiests who deny the historical evidence are offering no basis for their disbelief.  The most they can do is admit that they do not know.

Let us tackle this next.

With focus on significant beliefs such as God communicating with a specific prophet, let us ask the following question:  Is there a difference between not believing in A and believing in Not A?  

First position of "not believing in A" is not a belief whereas the second position of "believing in Not A" is a belief. 

Let us look at the first position.  Person who is not believing in A does not have the burden to prove anything because he does not believe in anything with that position. It is merely a suspension of judgment with the burden of proof shifted to the party making positive statement about belief.  

Now, let us look at the second position. If A is a warranted belief, then believing in Not A is not rational.  However, if A is not a warranted belief, and at best there is very limited experience (such as the experience of communication with God by a single person calling himself a prophet, or a few who record such a prophet's past), then it is rational to believe in Not A.

 Thus, if a Christian comes to offer the Witness for his belief, do not feel the burden of proof.  Be clear that the burden of proof in on the one offering Witness.  Does it make sense to ask a religious person to ask for proof?  A better question is, when does it make sense to ask a religious person for proof?  Christians offer historical evidence as the foundational core belief for their religion.  Thus, Christianity stands on a historical claim.  If you are asked to believe it, it is important for you to know whether this the historical evidence is believable.

This essay should help you fend off specious arguments that Christians use to "prove" that (a) Jesus came back to life after death; (b) Jesus is son of God.