Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


EVALUATE: A miracle that is clearly a contradiction would not mean that all miracles are or try to be.

Such a miracle would be a priori rejected. If God said that he took away your past and it never existed that would be an a priori contradiction. It is impossible to tell what is being claimed in a miracle account. What if Jesus rose from the dead? What if he did not but God just wiped out the reality of the crucifixion and the burial meaning Jesus never died? Nobody has any way of distinguishing a priori false miracles from their counterparts. You cannot say, "I don't reject the miracle stories of Jesus a priori for maybe someday we will understand what made people come up with the stories or we will get evidence that they are true." A priori does not care about evidence period. Evidence cannot support a contradiction.

So we have learned so far that we cannot tell what miracle is a contradiction or not.

One thing is for sure that if the miracle is not a contradiction you are contradicting yourself by calling it a hint or evidence that your religion is worth considering as true.

What if we could tell if say, one miracle was a contradiction? Do we look at miracles case by case or do we treat them as a unit? Case by case means you may find that many miracles are not contradictions but some are. Unit means that if there is a contradiction one, then it is connected to the non-contradicting ones. You take the different miracles as manifestations or outworkings of one miracle. A miracle can be an octopus putting its wonders here and there which look like separate things when actually it is the one miracle doing it. Many tentacles do not mean there is more than one octopus.

If a thing is 1% nonsense then the 99% only imitates good sense and looks like it but is not good sense. The whole thing is rubbish.

This is another reason why the miracle is no good as evidence or a hint. It is religiously useless. Religion cannot claim it. So what claims it? Science? What else is there? Religion cannot protect miracles from science. Why does it keep wanting to?